The web is a heterogeneous space, but considering its physical limitation (the earlier discussed algorithm and the act of sharing) the web still constrains users in getting the information they want. It is a medium that offers ‘’random access’’, with no beginning or end (Bolter and Grusin 2000), meaning that the algorithm provides different ‘beginnings’ for every user. The user has the feeling that he or she is given greater control over what he or she listens to, reads and sees, but they will still be influenced by pre-emptive behaviour of the system. The function of the online interface creates a functionally different design to information. The interpretation of information is always juxtaposed by the web, as it shares the possibility of creating several dimensions in which the content can be perceived.
The current interfaces are able to create an overlapping or nested set of open windows containing information (think of the tabs opened in your browser). Each window is defined by its own content, but is unified by its design. In so the overlapping content can be interpreted as complementary, purely by visual. For example: using different tabs on the same news content, can work complementary, when the news sources offer different information. Younger people are better adjusted to this phenomenon and are in the main better able to read information with a different conscious recognition or acknowledgement of the medium than their older counterparts (Hoggart 1957, Handa 2004). The user redefines the literacies according to his or her own visual and conceptual relationship to the mediated space. Completeness of information in this case is a contextual and situational concept, since different media offer different amounts (and types) of information and people differ in to what extent they understand the different literacies.
The personified interface enhances or limits understanding. However, having different webpages about the same topic could result in misstate information, because the whole can be distorted by diverging content. For example, different online dictionaries can give different definitions for the same word. The fundamental misunderstanding is created by designed elements in the interface, that leads the viewer to a certain type of interpretation. Here, it’s more about the interface on the level of websites, rather than the level of browsers. Again, most online dictionaries have an authoritative design, that provides diverging definitions, causing confusion in which dictionary or definition to adopt. The elements act as rhetoric receptors in a broad perspective; from colour to image to the type of font that it is used and the usability of the interface as well.