Digital rhetoric has a long struggle to be defined to just one field due it having an analytic method or heuristic for production side to it. This is partly due to rhetoric having various definitions by itself, making it such a wide topic. The other reason is because of the changing times where rhetoric transitioned from its original use of public speaking, to private discussions and now digitally. Richard Lanham coined the term ‘digital rhetoric’ and began understanding how the digital movement affected rhetoric. Eyman states that the definition can be simplified, “as the application of rhetorical theory to digital text and performances” (13).

2. Text “A communicative event that meets seven specific criteria of textuality: cohesion, coherence, intentionality, acceptability, informality, situationally, and intertextuality” (Eyman 21).
Eyman expresses that he thought that text was a limited term, until he started working with it. Much like rhetoric, the word text has undergone a change due to the advancing technology and times. Text began with print media, but overtime it has become much more than that with multiple different standards of what text is defined as. It is important to understand what is general criteria of text is and how it has expanded past print text.

3. Intertextuality “Align theories and methods of classical and contemporary rhetoric to network texts and new media as objects of study” (Eyman 34).
This section starts off with an explanation from Warnick saying that digital text is to different from print text to be grouped together and will need to be adjusted. While Eyman agrees it will need to be adjusted, he believes, “it is not a sufficient answer in terms of developing digital rhetoric as a field” (Eyman 34). This is important to realize because intertextuality should encompass all text and create new theories and method from it.