The Pragmatics of Windows

After discussing the types of windows and their roles in the desktop metaphor, the question remains if there are any features which can be described in linguistic terms.
With regard to what has been said in the previous section, the context of a conversation could also be regarded as a mode. Certainly, a job interview is a different mode than a conversation between friends in a bar. What is more, people often have to switch between different modes, for example, when talking to a colleague in an office and then phoning an important client in the next minute. After that phone call, one might receive a call from a investment advisor who talks about an interesting IPO. In a similar fashion, users switch from a spreadsheet program to an illustration program and so on (see also Johnson's thoughts in the previous sections. Moreover, programs are conversation partners as pointed out in section 4.2.1. Thus, the more programs are opened, the more conversation partners and contexts are available to the user.
Humans are required to adjust their language to a conversation partner and a conversation context just as different tools are needed in a particular mode. These tools, as well as different views of the objects in the primary window, are provided by secondary windows. Referring to what has been said in section 4.2.2, selecting a tool in a secondary window is a click act (selecting a spray can, for example, could be understood as the command "Use the spray can for the next acton").
Although programs or primary windows can be regarded as conversation partners, it is unknown whether users understand them as such. As pointed out in the previous section, users may experience a window as a mode and, at the same time, as a virtual piece of paper. It is doubtable whether users regard a piece of paper as a conversation partner. Thus, the model presented here has to be regarded as an ideal model.