taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) (01/18/87)
This article is from Robert_Slade%UBC.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
and was received on Sat Jan 17 01:08:09 1987
I am interested in the arguments regarding the "limitations" of
messaging and the concern about its confined "bandwidth. In October of 1985
I was able to help set up and run the World Logo Conference, which, from
what I have been able to gather, was the first conference to integrate on-
site participation with "real time" data conferencing, "static" (ebbs type)
data conferencing, messaging and data libraries. Since that time I have
presented the results of this conference both in writing and to various
groups and conferences. The responses to my presentations have followed very
closely the discussion here about messaging.
One common point has been that messaging, or data conferencing of any
sort, does not allow for the full range of expression, and therefore does
not allow for full communication, particularly of subtle points.
During the course of the World Logo Conference, I was assisting one
couple to initiate an "on-line" session, and stayed around to view their
session and ensure that they did not require any additional assistance. The
session, due to the pun contained in the words "wrapping" and "rapping",
discussed both the use of Logo with young children and the geometric and
topological implications of the Logo graphics screen. In response to a
suggestion by one participant that was not quite accurate I got involved and
suggested the correct topological figure to use and that we, as educators,
were sometimes too quick to unnecessarily sacrifice accuracy for expediency.
This, predictably, provoked a rash of charges that I was a pedant. It also
elicited a request from a seven year old girl and her five year old brother
that I explain why a "taurus" (she was born under that sign) had anything to
do with the computer.
For those who have worked with real time conferencing, with the intense
pressure to type as quickly and accurately as possible, I will not have to
explain how I sweated over the next two minutes (which seemed like hours) to
explain to two primary school children how a donut and a computer screen are
topologically identical. In the end I had produced about thirteen lines, and
really had no expectation of being fully understood, merely feeling an
obligation to try and answer the kids and attempt to defend my faith in
truth as opposed to "fast facts". Again I suffered a barrage of abuse,
mostly from a doctorate from Montreal who had great fun at the expense of my
argument and ended by asking "if the screen is a donut, where's the hole?"
I had decided to retire in disgrace from the fray when the younger
brother unexpectedly came to my rescue by informing my colleague that "the
hole is the not-screen." He had to have understood pretty thoroughly to have
come up with that. At five.
(To refute in advance the arguments that one line doesn't indicate full
understanding, it was later confirmed by further questioning. Not my own. I
will remember Darby and Gilly as long as I live.)