Fascinating book, isn't it? And once you realize how much difference the "look" of Writing Machines makes, you start wondering why more books don't take advantage of design possibilities. Or at least I do.
Jen's comment on the magnification effect is dead-on. For me, another interesting thing about the magnification or fish-eye effect is that I sometimes have to think hard about why this passage and not that one. I can't so easily read past or read through, in the way I might have been able to if Hayles had used italics, or underlining, or bold-faced type.
This also relates to Lyndsay's comments on transparency, a concept that becomes "visible" to her through the mirror-effect on pp.121-22. Richard Lanham, author of The Electronic Word, has called this experience of noticing the medium as well as the message (can they really be separated?) "looking at" rather than "looking through," which is what we usually do when we read.
Dawn notices another visible element - the barcode - that raises questions about uniformity, about coding, about transparency and opacity (we can't read it unless we have a special machine, and even if we could, it would probably give us letters and numbers that are another code) - all of which further make Hayles' point about the generative inquiry made possible by the design of the book.
Great comments! Keep 'em coming!