This article presents the results of an April 2003 electronic survey of ATTW members. Results and interpretations are categorized as follows: a professional profile of respondents; member observations about ATTW and its activities (member participation, appraisal of benefits, and preferred topics for TCQ); and current issues and views of the field's future.

An environmental impact statement (EIS) is supposed to ensure that a government agency thoroughly evaluates a project's impacts, studies feasible alternatives, and gives all stakeholders an active role in project-related decisions. Previous rhetorical studies of the EIS describe a failed or subversive genre routinely used to advance the strategic aims of an agency seeking to implement a project despite significant opposition. This article contends that an EIS motivated by a genuinely persuasive purpose can serve as the discursive focus of democratic decision making about major projects and substantially achieve Habermas's norms of communicative action. This may happen, for example, when a local transportation agency develops an EIS for a federal transportation agency. To illustrate this possibility, two EISs involving distinct federal-local relationships in Puerto Rico are evaluated using criteria proposed by John Forester for investigating the degree to which public decision-making processes fulfill Habermas's norms of communicative action.

Now that intranets have become the new model for information technology systems, we can expect that more organizations will adopt online document review and editing procedures. This may be problematic for technical editors. Survey studies published in 1992 and 1995 found that most technical editors were still editing on paper most of the time even though an overwhelming percentage of them had access to computers and expressed a positive attitude toward using computers for editing-related tasks. In this article I review discussions of online editing in the technical communication literature to understand how online editing has been constructed within the discipline and why many technical editors remain loyal to traditional paper-based procedures. I discuss a recent call for emulating handwritten mark-up and author queries electronically and compare this “technical fix” with the collaborative online editing affordances of the latest word processors. I then discuss studies of online reading and composition whose results suggest that the materiality of hard-copy editing procedures may contribute to some inherent advantages over online emulations of such procedures, or at least foster the widespread perception that certain advantages exist for hard-copy editing. I conclude by urging an open-minded and flexible but also critical perspective toward online editing technology. Such a perspective should help make the move to online editing a more positive experience for technical editors. It might also help them define a higher-level role for editing in the information and document development process.