I'd love to see an example of this - it's the single point of Evaluation that made me wonder how that can be demonstrated effectively.

For me, this is the real crux of the port project. Is it even possible to stay true to more than one or two of those questions?

This is extraordinarily clear and I like it a lot. When literary and creative form comes from combinatory literature - you can't begin to understand the work by reading the content.

I rate this a lot. This removes the technology-platform-specific nature of other definitions and looks underneath the literary work itself. I really rate the reference to 'underpinnings' - it strongly speaks to how intensely integrated both the literary experience is alongside the mechanics of that digital experience.

I think this is an interesting way to express the evolution of electronic literature, but link is quite possibly dating as fast as 'computer' in the ELO version. Perhaps 'long live the code'?

This covers some of the complexities in trying to interlock creative arts with rigid technology, all within a single description. It calls out how fast technology dates and platforms change while noting how literary creativity will not be tied to those boundaries.

This key phrase in the definition is very puzzling. I am still not quite certain what aspects can be defined as important and who makes that specific judgement. (The reader? The academic? The peer?) I'm very keen to work it out though.

This is a fun example that seems to suggest that blending technology frameworks with literary value creates a mash-up of the unexpected, and genres evolve almost to break through the definition.

I think my biggest curiosity here is the variable nature of the word 'meaningful' - it says to me 'it must be moving, be changing, be something bigger, it is an experience' so seems directly mismatched against the real specifics of 'electronic device'. Others may not agree with my definition of 'meaningful' however, which is half the fun of trying to define something in the first place.

The historical context and generations of work references are fascinating. It implies that cataloguing previous works is almost archaeological in nature. This makes me think that the more popular and interlocked E-Lit becomes with technology, especially in places where the old definitions do not necessarily work as well as they used to, the more there will be to catalogue and showcase. Does this mean it is about storing stories, technology applications, experiences or all three?

The digital landscape moves extremely quickly. Entire digital mediums have evolved, become everyday experiences for millions of people then collapsed and been superseded by a new digital standard many times over between 2010 and today. It will be interesting to analyse whether entirely new literary experiences have risen and evolved during this timeframe or if they are iterative experiences on some of the older showcases. Has any brand new E-Lit been created? It's a fun question to ask and it also impacts the definition in my view - as defining it with definite platforms would lock it to an 'era' of digital mediums and it will become out of date.

I like the meshing of these terms, this is one of the clearest sentences for me when trying to define E-Lit. It's not creatively restrictive, not platform specific, not holding back an experience or a 'reader interaction' and gives an immense space to work within - as long as that work is technically deliberate.

I find the choice of the word 'networked' changes the categorisations under which e-lit could be considered, and is a very specific term. Networked implies that the literary experience must be shareable, or connected or sent or easily accessed. This is not defined in other possible definitions - and makes me wonder whether it's a requirement for a definition, or a restriction.

I follow the bidding of the cheerful tutorial page.