If I am understanding right, something is “coercive” to the extent that it doesn’t support a wide variety of ways of interacting with it in order to get whatever benefits it offers. An extreme example would be a document that starts out written in (say) English, but keeps introducing neologisms and new symbols and unorthodox grammatical constructions, so that it ends up written in a language and notation entirely of the author’s devising that you can only make sense of by starting at the beginning and working through it in order.
The examples here are all about information sources, for which “interacting with” mostly means “reading”, but I think the notion generalizes further. I suspect that the choice of a better term—I think “coercive” is bad—will be tangled up with the choice of how far (if at all) to generalize.
If I am understanding right, something is “coercive” to the extent that it doesn’t support a wide variety of ways of interacting with it in order to get whatever benefits it offers. An extreme example would be a document that starts out written in (say) English, but keeps introducing neologisms and new symbols and unorthodox grammatical constructions, so that it ends up written in a language and notation entirely of the author’s devising that you can only make sense of by starting at the beginning and working through it in order.
The examples here are all about information sources, for which “interacting with” mostly means “reading”, but I think the notion generalizes further. I suspect that the choice of a better term—I think “coercive” is bad—will be tangled up with the choice of how far (if at all) to generalize.