taylor@hplabs.HP.COM (Dave Taylor) (01/19/88)
The discussion of hypertext brought to mind something that I've noticed for a long time about my interaction with computers; there is no sense of aesthetic or kinesthetic to them. I say this sitting at home, glancing at a printout of the last few issues of the Computers and Society Digest, and comparing the `feel' of the printed page with the `feel' of the CRT. Not only is there no comparision as far as the readability and quality of typographical display, but the computer seems an inherently cold and insensitive thing. Look, for example, at the work necessary to personalize individual electronic postings, compared to the inherently `personal' feel of a handwritten letter . . . Perhaps some of it is culturally based, however, since I was raised with an appreciation of books, typography, and writing. Nevertheless, it surely is a more difficult boundary for computers to cross than something like `creating hypertext links' is. I do wonder how common my sentiments are - by way of example, is there anyone here who prefers reading long documents on the computer to printing it out and reading the paper copy? Hmmm...as I think about it, I realize that there *is* a category of textual information that I prefer to have on-line; program listings. By extension, I surmise that non-linear information is easier to digest in an environment that supports *finding* a specific reference quickly (e.g. hypertext). So where are we? Information that is intended to be digested in a linear fashion, like prose, is apparently easier to appreciate and enjoy when printed out, and non-linear information, like program listings are easier to appreciate when on-line. Another example pops into mind; when I work on articles, I always use a computer for composition, but significant draft changes are almost always done by printing out the text and editing by hand with a pen. I find it easier to think about what I'm say, and how I'm saying it, when it's on paper. Any thoughts? -- Dave Taylor
eugene@ames-pioneer.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) (01/20/88)
Computer graphics: because it is so visual, and so accessible to the non-computist has been thinking about aesthetics for some time (albeit at a low level). A major discussion took place at the 1985 ACM/SIGGRAPH meeting in San Francisco when a panel convened. The major conclusion was "it's cute but has terrible content." Arguments take place distinguishing a technical Aesthetic: (1985 SIGGRAPH Demo reel: Quest: A Long Ray's Journey into Light) versus a real plots (1987 SIGGRAPH: Oilspot and Lipstick). P.S. I'm not really a fan of Luxo, Jr., or Young Sherlock Holmes. There are (generally) two graphics camps: the real timers (interaction) and the realists (imitators). There are others, but the real-timers are closer to abstract aesthetics. Ray tracing is popular with the imitators (who are in some ways closer to Alan Turing). Anyway, one reference (for light reading, I read it while riding ski lifts) is: Essays from the SIGGRAPH '86 Art Show Catalog, "Computer Graphics", ACM, Vol 21, Number 1, January 1987. With subpapers like: TV Need MTV Like MTV Needs Computers by John Whitney Why It Isn't Art Yet by Ken Knowlton And so forth. The basic problem is not recognizing what's bad. I use an analogy of the development of photography from 1840 and what it did to artists (put them out of work), to f/64 and Adams/Weston, etc. Will the aesthetics of computers become something like modern art? A lot of people are incapable to distinguishing the quality of graphics images: "Yes computer graphics: all those lines [hidden lines visible, calligraphic systems]" or raster without good ray tracing. The people who do graphics constitute a critical audience and have an idea of problems and can say something is good. Anyway, I have to show you tapes and images (ASCII won't cut it). WE MUST DEVELOP A DISCRIMINATING VIEWING AUDIENCE. Anyway, if you want to learn more, we're meeting (Bay Area ACM/SIGGRAPH Technical Interest Group on Aesthetics: Thurs. Feb. 4 7 PM in Berkeley. Send me mail for details. It's a potluck dinner meeting: bring one food dish and a piece of graphics work and a statement of position in writing. Also the March Bay Area ACM/SIGGRAPH and National NCGA meetings will have an Aesthetics panels. THINK CRITICALLY. Eugene Miya
ix665@sdcc6.UCSD.EDU (Sue Raul) (01/20/88)
Let's start with some definitions:
from my Oxford American Dictionary:
aesthetics - branch of philosophy dealing with the principles of
beauty in art.
What does the OAD say about beauty? -
beauty - n. 1. a combination of qualities that give pleasure to the
sight or other senses or to the mind. 2. a person or thing having
this, a beautiful woman. 3. a fine specimen; "here's a beauty."
4. a beautiful feature; "that's the beauty of it", the point
that gives satisfaction.
What does the OAD say about art? -
art - n. 1. the production of something beautiful, skill or ability
in suchwork. 2. works such as paintings or sculptures produced by
skill. 3. any practical skill, a knack, "the art of sailing".
And I'll add a couple more: write, paper, CRT
write - v. 1. to make letters or other symbols on a surface,
especially with a pen or pencil on paper. 2. to form (letters or
words or a message etc.) in this way; "write a check", write
the appropriate figures and words and signature etc. to make it
valid. 3. to compose in written form for publication, to be an
author, "write books" or "music; he makes a living by
writing." 4. to write and send a letter, "write to me often."
5. to write to, "I will write you soon." 6. to indicate
clearly, "guilt was written all over her."
paper - n. 1. a substance manufactured in thin sheets from wood
fiber, rags, etc., used for writing or printing or drawing on or
for wrapping things. 2. a newspaper. 3. wallpaper. 4. a document;
"a ship's papers", documents establishing its identity etc. 5.
an essay or dissertation, especially one read to a learned society.
from Webster's NewWorld Dictionary of Computer Terms:
CRT - abbreviation for CATHODE RAY TUBE a screen like that of a
television receiver, used in computer systems for viewing data: it
typically displays 20 to 24 lines of data with 60 to 80 characters
per line. A CRT may be used in place of a printer and, with an
attached keyboard, forms a TERMINAL
Based on these definitions, I understand that:
Aesthetics relates to beauty which relates to pleasure.
Art relates to beauty (which relates to pleasure) and skill.
Paper and CRT's are things.
Now to your article:
> The discussion of hypertext brought to mind something that I've noticed
> for a long time about my interaction with computers; there is no sense
> of aesthetic or kinesthetic to them.
But I'd say CRT's *do* have aesthetics and kinesthetics to them. While
this varies depending on a number of factors, not the least of which is
the user's typing ability, there are a number of aesthetic and kinesthetic
experiences involved in CRT use.
There's rhythm, and the sound of the keys being hit - not all sounding
the same either - an aural sensory experience.
There's the kinesthetic of the up and down motion of the fingers, with
a little side to side thrown in; finger choreography.
There's the "pleasure" of hitting something and getting something you
intended, sort of like enjoying the kinesthetic feel of playing the piano
while enjoying the sound of the music. The "pleasure" of the visual
replaces that of the aural with CRT's, rather than hearing the right
notes, as on a piano, you see the right letters, see your meaning take
shape.
(I'm not comparing the experience of playing the piano to that of writing
on a CRT, by the way. I'm comparing the similarity of the human action
of a *known* aesthetic experience (playing the piano) to the non-aesthet-
ically-defined experience of using a CRT. The line gets drawn when the
*results* are compared - the 'music' from a piano versus the 'words' from
a CRT. While comparisons of art forms can be made, they always reach
a limit where the individual medium must be evaluated independently with
its own criteria. This is beyond the realm of this discussion)
> I say this sitting at home, glancing at a printout of the last few
> issues of the Computers and Society Digest, and comparing the `feel'
> of the printed page with the `feel' of the CRT. Not only is there
> no comparision as far as the readability and quality of typographical
> display, but the computer seems an inherently cold and insensitive thing.
I'd say this is very subjective. It seems to me you prefer the experience
of 'holding' what you read on paper to 'not having anything to hold' with
a CRT. I would say that's subjective and cannot be given as a universal
advantage of paper. Some people may enjoy the motions of hitting keys,
finger dancing, to get new screenfuls. As for the computer (CRT) being
inherently cold and insensitive - what's the difference between hardware
and paper in that regard?
In fact, a CRT can be quite warm - if it's been on for a while. A piece
of paper is just a form of material that has a common use. A CRT is a
machine (a form of materials) that has a common use. Surely, both paper
and CRT's can be put to other uses than their common ones. One can 'write'
with both. One can fly a paper airplane, make origami, play paper
baseball, wear paper dresses (remember those!?), eat paper, wipe up a spill,
etc. With a CRT one can work on a computer, generate heat to warm up cold
hands, hit it and make interesting diverse sounds for entertainment, draw
on it and make art, take it apart and put its pieces in a pleasing order
on the floor, drop it from a tenth story window and see how far the parts
fly, use it as a paper weight, etc.
A couple of things that make paper unattractive (I've experienced all these):
Paper cuts.
Ink or paper (usually textbooks) that stinks.
Bindings that fall apart.
Printouts that fall and unravel and tear and are hard to manage.
Having to hold the paper to read it, hands aren't free to do
something else (like scratch an itch).
A couple of things that make CRT's unattractive (I've experienced all these):
Sticky or broken keys.
Can be tiring on the eyes.
Typing can be slowed down by high load averages (a computer
problem more than a CRT problem per se).
Noisy phone lines (for modem/terminal hookups). [the 'outside
intervention' factor that would only occur with paper if you were,
say, writing outdoors and a bird relieves itself on your work.]
Can't take it with you (that's changing with portable small
computers but is still a problem if you're a modem/terminal).
Aesthetically, both paper and CRTs have their advantages and disadvantages
(see my next point).
> Look, for example, at the work necessary to personalize individual
> electronic postings, compared to the inherently `personal' feel of a
> handwritten letter . . .
Granted, an individual's handwriting is very personal. If this were the
main tenet of your argument, I would stop here and grant you that
handwriting is more personal than typing, if only because the product
will be "visually" unique from individual to individual, and therefore
more 'inherently' personal. But then we're not 'reading' the writing,
but 'looking at it' as if it were an 'art work.' At that point we're not
using 'writing' to convey meaning, but as visual stimulus. Perhaps there
is an experience of this sort when one reads a foreign language in a
strange alphabet that one doesn't understand and one says, 'what a
beautiful document' based upon the 'look' of the symbols, the page, the
stone, whatever, but I'd argue that if we read a familiar language, the
'input' is as much the 'meaning' of what is written as the 'look' of it.
e.e. cummings played with the idea of words, punctuations, and space
intermingling with each other, for instance. If it were to become
incomprehensible, the visual experience would be all that was left.
With just a little bit of meaning (rules of the language) remaining in
the relationships, the reader sees both the visual designs *and* the
meanings. [like hearing "twinkle twinkle little star" embedded in a
Haydn symphony - you get it all.]
But once we 'understand' the meaning 'behind' the symbols 'writing' is
more than (just) putting squiggly lines on paper, or CRTs, it is the
communication of ideas, in words, that are to be read *out of real time*,
whether by someone else, or by yourself at a later time. For this, paper
and CRT's are equals, with subjective experiences and preferences of course.
On your second point -
I don't think of it as a lot of work to personalize electronic mail/postings.
Personal style is inherent in writing words: order, punctuation, using one's
vocabulary, etc. It's natural if you know the rules of the language. Maybe
for some people it's work, but one can say that about handwritten letters
too. For some it may be work to keep it legible, to correct mistakes, to
keep a flow of ideas going at a slow pace. Different kinds of work, for
sure, but not more or less, or more or less preferable (except as
subjectively defined).
Are you putting more value on the way something 'looks' than the way it
reads? Valuing 'handwriting,' the fact that someone physically touches
a pen and paper over the content, someone's ideas? There's a whole world
of appreciation for that in autograph collecting. That's fine and
there's no competition from CRTs in this case, but I was reading more
into your article about 'aesthetics' of CRT use,as explained in my
opening responses.
> Perhaps some of it is culturally based, however, since I was raised
> with an appreciation of books, typography, and writing. Nevertheless,
> it surely is a more difficult boundary for computers to cross than
> something like `creating hypertext links' is.
Again, if you're talking about the "hand touching the page" versus the
"ideas being communicated" I'll agree that the boundary exists.
However, why is one prefered over another? Touching pen and paper
and typing on a CRT both utilize are two functions of kinesthetic
experience; to touch and to move.
Writing with pen and paper uses *different* motions (utilizing the linear
motions on a horizontal plane) and has a different touch feeling (that
of the pen and the paper) than a CRT (utilizing up/down motions, the
feel of the keys/buttons). But I don't think one is inherently more
pleasing (beautiful, aesthetically rewarding) than the other, unless
one is more skilled at one over the other (refer to definition of art).
> I do wonder how common my sentiments are - by way of example, is
> there anyone here who prefers reading long documents on the computer
> to printing it out and reading the paper copy?
I may be one. It depends on how long, on whether I want to read it for
a long time at once. I prefer a well bound book to a 200 page printout
that has a chance of falling and becoming unmanagable. I prefer a
computer file to such a printout if it's formatted and the CRT can
produce the graphics of italics, underlying, bold, etc., as called for
and as will represent the author's intentions. I definitely hate
bursting a printout and tearing off the paper guides!
> Hmmm...as I think about it, I realize that there *is* a category of
> textual information that I prefer to have on-line; program listings.
> By extension, I surmise that non-linear information is easier to
> digest in an environment that supports *finding* a specific reference
> quickly (e.g. hypertext).
Well, what is linear or non-linear? Don't you go back and forth reading
from paper? It's only in the "look for" - "/" - situation that it might
be faster, therefore better to use a CRT. (See..., I'm not arguing *for*
CRTs, but for *objectivity* about materials and their usages).
> So where are we? Information that is intended to be digested in a
> linear fashion, like prose, is apparently easier to appreciate and
> enjoy when printed out, and non-linear information, like program
> listings are easier to appreciate when on-line.
Not all printed books are intended to be digested in a linear
fashion, however, so you can't generalize about the aesthetics
of paper vs. CRTs from *that* premise.
> Another example pops into mind; when I work on articles, I always
> use a computer for composition, but significant draft changes are
> almost always done by printing out the text and editing by hand
> with a pen. I find it easier to think about what I'm say, and how
> I'm saying it, when it's on paper.
Hm, can we actually agree on something? I prefer composing (in words,
that is) on-line too. For large scale editing, yes, I do the same with
a printout and pen in hand. (whaddya know!)
Sue Rauleugene@ames-pioneer.arpa (Eugene Miya N.) (01/23/88)
Sue: Interesting I would add two things about the disadvantages of paper: - Once it's down in type, it's down, (hardcopy if hard) - Littering I am wonder about Sue's opinions of abstract arts (Impression, and so on) and comments about the Process of Art. It seems that a lot of her stuff is somewhat static in nature. I do see the distinctions she mentions in art and writing. Picasso iterated many of his most famous works. Many of the attempts were interesting in their own right. Eugene
tysko@pdp.cs.ohiou.edu (John Tysko) (01/23/88)
I have noticed that I have a preference for either terminals or listings, depending upon what I am doing. When making significant changes in a document, I also prefer working from a printed copy. This is because I like to see more than 24 lines at a time. Since I don't usually burst my listings, I will often work with 3 pages spread out on a desk at once. This give me an 'information window' of 150 lines or so. This allows me to move paragraphs (or sections or even chapters) around and see the changes in relation to the remainder of the document. When working an a particular paragraph, I do prefer the terminal since its much easier to rewrite a sentence several times and see the results in the paragraph at once. But then I do try to avoid paragraphs longer than 24 lines :-). As for programs, I still prefer a listing for examining a new program (or one I haven't worked on in a while), especially if they are long. Using my finger as a place holder to flip to a specific place in the listing is much faster (for me) than using a find in an editor. Likewise, being able to view a block of 60 or 120 lines at a time, while having a listing of [functions, procedures, subroutines,...] next to the code I am examining is a big help. Once again, when working on a particular procedure, I prefer a terminal for immediate feedback it provides. By the way, I initially learned to program FORTRAN with punch cards. My programs would typically contain loops of 200+ statements. Easily read if you spread out 3-4 pages on a desk top. At that time, articles about proper programming style that suggested limiting the size of procedures and routines seemed to me to be absurd. Then I started using a terminal and learned how hard it is to view a 200 line loop at 300 BAUD :-), and how to wish very hard for 1200 BAUD modems. Now I have matured. I use a 9600 baud terminal, write small procedures (because I can't find the top of my desk), and wish for a 19.2kb terminal :-). John Tysko
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (01/23/88)
Dave Taylor talks about printed versus on-line textual displays and the aesthetic differences between them... I think that with either media you can create an aesthetically pleasing or completely ugly form of communication. Your example of the CRT is the most common these days in terms of computer communication with the human. However, much progress has been made since bit-mapped displays were introduced in quantity. PostScript-based display systems (eg. NeWS) also help with quality of typography. Of course, we are not at the point yet where this is the norm, but give it time. Normally, if I print out a long document it is because I don't have the time to read it during this terminal session and I wish it in a form that allows me to take it with me where I may not have access to it on the screen. I think another issue is access to information. The printed matter is still the most common media of accessing information. The newspaper is so successful due to the fact that it is (1) cheap, (2) mallable (in terms of I can fold it while on the train or spread it out on the table), (3) portable, and easily obtained. In cases where a code listing does not easily fit on the page or I just don't feel like paging back and forth in a screen editor, I prefer to print out code listings and put them in a binder :-) > Another example pops into mind; when I work on articles, I always > use a computer for composition, but .. changes are done [on paper] I do my own editing on-line. However, if I wish a colleague to review and edit something, I always give it to them in hardcopy form. I guess this is out of habit from the days when I used Scribe under VM. Under UNIX one can simply as the person to take a copy of the document from a directory and work on it. However, I know many people who prefer to be handed the hardcopy to review. For style and visual effect I want to see the printed hardcopy, but this is only due to not having an appropriate viewing filter for a CRT. On a Sun or other such workstation, it should be possible to view the document as it would appear on the printed page. However, I think this is a separate function from editing (no WYSIWYG editing). Several years ago I saw a demonstration of the DEC MicroVAX II Graphics Workstation with a WYSIWYG editor for document composition/viewing/editing. The idea was quite appealing, white paper background with fonts that could be changed using a mouse. I know that Xerox was into this field long ago, and that electronic publishing is a fast growing field, but how common are these practices on general purpose systems? George W. Leach
jrk@computer-lab.cambridge.ac.uk (Robert Kennedy) (01/23/88)
Dave Taylor recently wrote: > The discussion of hypertext brought to mind something that I've noticed > for a long time about my interaction with computers; there is no sense > of aesthetic or kinesthetic to them. Oh? I don't know about that. What about the aesthetics of good programming, or good composition? Granted, a bookshelf full of computers isn't as pretty in some people's eyes as a bookshelf full of beautifully-bound gold-edged volumes... I don't think all that much work is needed to personalize an electronic posting. All you have to do be able to write well (I realize this is asking a bit much of some people, but it's not asking TOO much.) and with style. The CONTENT is what's important. Are you saying that Melville's "Moby Dick" becomes a different work when reprinted in a different typeface? Surely not... To me, it's the same novel, with all the nuances of Melville's style and personality, even when I read it in a typeface he never intended. Even if I read it from a computer screen. Even if someone reads it aloud to me. Furthermore, you should know that the word "inherent" is really, really dangerous. How can you say a machine, more than a bunch of paper and ink, is "cold and insensitive" in some fundamental way? All you can say is that you like it less. You can try to explain why, but don't try to say that your feelings are inherent in anything but you. I think this dislike of yours is completely culturally-based. Some people view telephone conversation as the most personal means of long-distance communication. How many people would have agreed with them just one all-too-short century ago? Not very many. Resistance to the ubiquity of phones was initially very strong because they were seen as "inherently cold and insensitive". Today, they are seen as "reach out and touch" by most people... Socialization. ALL socialization. ALL culturally-based. NOTHING inherent. Don't get me wrong. At the same time as I say all this, I am an aspiring calligrapher, and I do appreciate good typefaces and other aesthetic aspects of the presentation of the written word. But we shouldn't confuse visual pleasure or personal reading convenience with writing style or content. Also, my method of composing is pretty different. I find that some of my best thoughts decay faster that I can write them by hand, so I am better off doing all my composing and editing at the computer terminal, where I am limited only by my typing speed (which is about two to three times my handwriting speed). Your desire to compose at the terminal and edit away from the terminal is quite alright for you. I don't do it that way very much, though. I usually compose and edit until I think I have it right. If the document (or whatever) is long, I know how silly I am to think I have it right, so I proofread, fix, and then print it out. If the document is short, I might print it out straightaway. I then read the printed version and make sure it's right. I frequently find typographical errors, but little else that I want to change. This brings up an interesting point. I would rather do most of the editing at the terminal, but seeing the work in a different typeface (as when it's printed out) allows me to catch typos that my eye refuses to notice when I read on the screen. I cannot tell whether the important thing here is that I have changed typefaces or that I have changed media. Your conjecture would probably be that it is because I have changed media and am now reading a paper copy. I cannot argue -- it may be true. And there you have it... Thanks for listening. Was this letter long enough to get printed out and read, or did you read it on the CRT? :-) Robert Kennedy
sac@well.UUCP (Steve Cisler) (01/29/88)
As a librarian and some time user of old platen presses, I, too, have a love of books as objects (except when I have to move a collection of 32,000 volumes) and appreciate the typefaces, the paper, the way the book feels. As a computer user I compose my own newsletter on screen and find it difficult to write anything in longhand or on a typewriter. However, I do proofread paper copy much more easily than on a screen. As screen displays improve I think that hypertext journals and collaborative works will become more common, but for many traditional reasons they won't replace scholarly or popular serials. I think Bix and Byte magazine are interesting examples of the two forms complementing each other, but I can't see Byte fading away because of Bix. Steve Cisler
throopw@dg-rtp.DG.COM (Wayne A. Throop) (01/29/88)
First off, I prefer reference materials, however voluminous, to be online. Dave Taylor, in his original article on this subject, commented: > Hmmm...as I think about it, I realize that there *is* a category of > textual information that I prefer to have on-line; program listings. > By extension, I surmise that non-linear information is easier to > digest in an environment that supports *finding* a specific reference > quickly (e.g. hypertext). Indeed... hence my example of reference material, which is very non-linear. Note that the organization of text into a linear or non-linear form may be affected by the choice of delivery vehicle, so that "I prefer to do X by paper and Y by on-line tools" becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. Note that there is nothing intrinsic about on-line text presentation that prevents it from being equal to or superior to printed presentation even for linear organizations. The main reason that I prefer printed presentation for linearly organized material is that it is easier on the eye, and it is easier to apply eye-hand co-ordination to the task of flipping to nearby text, making this more comfortable in a printed presentation. I suspect that if the appearance of text on a monitor could be improved to be less eye-straining, and at the same time improve scrolling to be less jerky or "simulated-looking", I might start to prefer the on-line method for essentially every text/graphics presentation. Sue Raul, in a more recent article, commented: > I prefer composing (in words, that is) on-line too. For large scale > editing, yes, I do the same with a printout and pen in hand. (whaddya know!) Yup. Me too. Even for tree-organized things. If I'm proofreading a massive amount of stuff in a linear fashion, I print it out. Wayne Throop
rzellich@ALMSA-1.ARPA (Rich Zellich) (01/29/88)
The issue is not so much one of paper, per se, or CRT, per se, but the use that is made of each. I have some pretty crummy-looking fliers, reports, etc. here, that are not exactly a pleasure to read. On the other hand, while normal CRT 80-character-per-line text in a glare- lighting office environment is less than easy to read for hours on end, I have also seen some pretty good examples of "typeset-quality" computer output on higher-quality bitmapped CRTs. Everyone is used to typing full 80-character lines on CRTs because the space is there, but that doesn't mean it's easy to read; shorter lines, and maybe even 2-column formatting, would be easier to read (in an earlier discussion on this topic, I tried sending newspaper-style 2-column output and got the most amazing set of flames back...neither the technology nor the people were really ready for it, no matter what they had previously stated in the ongoing argument/discussion of the time). If you have a good bitmapped CRT, and decent lighting in your reading area, and the text is formatted with a decent font, spacing, width, etc., it's just as pleasant to read as a well-formatted book. Note that you have to apply the same level of work to either paper or CRT to achieve good readability (of course, with a CRT you also need software that makes it easy to "turn a page"). As for the aesthetics of *hand* written documents...nobody in his/her right mind would ever consider *my* handwriting pleasant to look at or read. Cheers, Rich
conybear@moncsbruce.OZ (Roland Conybeare) (01/29/88)
I think there are very good reasons for using paper over CRT's for the large-scale alteration of text: o It's easy to make changes stand out on a printout - use a biro. o You can see two or three times as much text at once on paper than you can on a CRT. o It follows from (1) that since it is easy to recognize alterations, it is also easy to remove inappropriate ones. o The pen is a better tool for drawing diagrams, making margin notes, and exploring a problem than a character-oriented CRT with keyboard input. On the other hand, the processing power of a computer offers enourmous composition advantages: o If alterations are correct, we don't want them to stand out any more. Then the CRT + computer's seamless integration of changes into a document is what we want. o The CRT + computer can make systematic alterations such as global replace easy. o The CRT is neat and tidy. I think that the advantages of pen + paper can be accomplished by CRT + computer with today's technology, but at great expense. This could be done with: o A very large (several ft. square) screen, which is also a desk and writing surface. o A pen-like input device for drawing pictures, etc. o Amazing software :-). Such a system could give the user the best of the pen+paper and CRT+computer worlds. Now if only it would also fit in your pocket and run on a couple of AA batteries :-). Roland Conybeare
norm@ontenv.uucp (Norman S. Soley) (01/29/88)
I recently attended a course called "Excellence in Thinking and Writing" put on by McLuhan & Davies Communications here in Toronto. The instructor was communications theorist Eric McLuhan (son of Marshall McLuhan). One of the topics discussed was "Writing with a VDT" in which the same feelings you express were explained. In addition to the cultural conditioning towards print media there is also a psychological reason. McLuhan (the elder) identified through his research the concepts of hot and cold media. Hot media are those media where the light source conveys information directly, Television and Computer monitors are the two best examples of this. Cold media are those where the information is picked up by reflection after the light has left it's source (sunlight reflecting off a printed page is cold media). It seems that the two types of light are processed differently by the brain. Hot media (VDT's) is processed by the left brain, cold by the right. Hence the preference for working with organized, technical material on screen and creative, personal things on paper. McLuhan (the younger) recommended that as a matter of practice any creative writing done on a VDT should be edited on paper and the corrections typed in afterwards. (so much for the paperless office). This was written and edited on VDT (I have no printer here). And I'm sure there is at least one spelling error and one gross miscarriage of english grammar somewhere in here even though I've read it over very carefully several times. Norman Soley
gls@odyssey.att.com (g.l.sicherman) (02/02/88)
Eugene is right on the nose, as usual. In the Age of Print, if we read about a famous work of Art, we ask, "What does it look like?" In the Computer Age we would have to ask, "What does it look like TODAY?" Except that in the Computer Age we don't *look at* Art, we participate. So the correct questions are, "What does it do to me? What do I do to it?" "Take this space between us -- fill it up some way" Art as we know it resides in that space. Electronics eliminates it by imploding society. "We have no art. We do everything as well as we can." Col. G. L. Sicherman
NU092254@ndsuvm1.BITNET (Brian Dall) (02/02/88)
Norman Soley wrote: > This was written and edited on VDT (I have no printer here). And I'm > sure there is at least one spelling error and one gross miscarriage > of english grammar somewhere in here even though I've read it over > very carefully several times. I am a copy editor at a newspaper. The paper employs two copy editors; my collegue handles the "hardcopy" that comes in, and I usually handle all of the "softcopy." Sometimes we help each other out, but often she sits at the table all day, and I sit behind a CRT at a desk. Both of us agree that copy editing is easier on the CRT, but it is easier to fulfill our "gate keeping" function when working with the hardcopy. The terms: Hardcopy is paper with printing on it. Softcopy is a floppy disk with information stored on it. "Copy editing" involves looking for factual error and errors in spelling, grammar, usage, style, and editorial policy violations, and correcting them. We also have to indicate typeface (point size, line length, line spacing, font, and justification). Gate keeping is deciding what is and what is not going to be put in the paper (based on quality, available space and some other factors). On the computer we have macros set up mnemonically to handle setting the typeface, and error correction and re-organization of material is easier and less messy. Deciding whether or not to run a story using hardcopy is easy because you just start making piles and shift things around until it looks right. If you change your mind, no big problem. On the computer however, either it is in or it is out. Once you zap a file it's gone. Copying edited files into a temporary storage area and deleting them from the work area is how we handle that now. If you lose an edited file, you can still go back to the unedited file and re-edit it if you need to. Oh, the error you were looking for but couldn't find: English is always capitalized. Bri
eugene@ames-pioneer.ARPA (Eugene N. Miya) (02/19/88)
Wayne wrote: > First off, I prefer reference materials, however voluminous, to be online. > Note that the organization of text into a linear or non-linear form may > be affected by the choice of delivery vehicle, so that "I prefer to do X > by paper and Y by on-line tools" becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. I suggest you strongly look at: Warren Teitelman, "The Cedar Programming Environment: A Midterm Report and Examination", Xerox Palo Alto Research Center CSL-83-11, Palo Alto, CA, June 1984. (Additional Keywords and Phrases: integrated programming environment, experimental programming, display oriented user interface, strongly types programming language environment, personal computing) A lesser version of this paper appears in IEEE Software, "A Tour Through Cedar", April 1984. The format of the first paper is closer to the "real" feel of Cedar. A better example comes from the sample Cedar video tape from PARC and a part of which appears on the ACM/SIGGRAPH/SIGCHI Video Review 1984 (?). If you read the paper, you will discover that close to 1/3 of it is footnotes. This is distracting on hardcopy but really neat on the screen. I can't describe what it's like working with it. Since then, of course, Notecards and the whole Hypertext thing has come out, but at the time it's was really neat. I really think the PARC people (and special kidos to Doug Englebart, formerly at SRI and now at McD/Tymshare) are doing it right. Eugene
DAVIDLI@SIMVAX.LABMED.UMN.EDU (David) (03/03/88)
I recently found the time to read through the articles on the "aesthetics" of computers. I can readily agree with much of the discussion. For example, electronic editing has become a necessity in the production of much printed material. The computer/terminal used for such a purpose is a tool ... the result is neither more nor less aesthetic than if it had been edited in longhand. One place where I believe the computer loses aesthetic quality is as a substitute for printed books. Someone made mention of the fact that the words of _Moby Dick_ are no different whether they're printed on paper or on a CRT. However, current technology cannot replace the *way* a person reads printed, as opposed to electronic, material. Books are handy things. They don't require electricity. They can be taken anywhere, anytime. They can be lent at little cost by virtue of the (slowly dwindling) resources of the Public Library System. Printed material is non-linear. I can flip from page 96 of Stewart Brand's book _The Media Lab_ to page 99 in an instant. If I read the intervening pages, I can find out more about Alan Kay's vision of the Dynabook. Some of the words will set me off on a new tangent. CRT oriented material is linear. While it is true that I can 'flip' from screen 96 to screen 99 of an on-line version of _The Media Lab_, I cannot keep more than 24 lines of text on the screen at a time. Currently I cannot look at the line drawing of "Dynabooks in use, as drawn by Alan Kay in 1972" on that screen. Even the use of subsection headings cannot be reproduced well. When you read a book of fiction, you are not trying to get through the material as quickly as you can. You are not interested in whether the reference to colonial Africa on page 292 is based on fact (something which Hypertext would quite easily be able to confirm or deny). You are immersing yourself in another reality. You are not constrained to sit upright in a straight-backed chair, having to press a key to scroll the screen so you can read the next sentence. The experience of reading for pleasure should not be (and *cannot* be, given current technology) performed via computer. It is not aesthetic. Factual information, on the other hand, is not generally read for pleasure. I read various and sundry compilations of "electronic" mailing lists and bulletin boards via my terminal at work. I am, in fact, composing this article on that terminal. I find that it takes less time to read through a printed copy of such electronic material, but it is more convenient to simply scroll through the text on a terminal, 24 line page by 24 line page. One of the reasons it is more convenient is that there is so *much* information presented, and most of it is of little or no consequence to the reader. It becomes quite simple to scan the heading of an article and type in the "skip article" command based on instant judgement of the contents. The computer becomes a tool. Whether there is an aesthetic quality in the operation of that tool is based more on personal attitude than on the (factual) information being read. David
jrk@computer-lab.cambridge.ac.uk (Robert Kennedy) (03/17/88)
Earlier, David Li at SIMVAX.LABMED.UMN.EDU wrote: >[books are cheaper, smaller, easier to loan than computers] This is true, and a major selling point of books for me. >[there are things you can do with a book that you can't do with a > computer, so books must be better] It is true that books are not computers and vice versa. Books have some strengths that computers don't share, it's true, but there are things you can do on a CRT that you can't do with a printed book, too. Many is the hour I've spent looking for some passage in a book, knowing, "It's about halfway up a left-hand page, and it's about Jenny's going to the grocery store." With a printed book, I sometimes give up, because it seems the only way to find the passage I seek is to read the entire book again. But on a CRT, given the right text-reading system, I can type "/Jenny.*store" and stand a fairly decent chance of finding what I'm after. A few other simple constructions, and I can almost certainly find it. There are advantages to both the printed word and to reading on a CRT. For each "printed word" advantage you give me, I can give you a "CRT" advantage. But this isn't the point. The point is that I believe there are many people who would disagree that they wouldn't be interested in whether a reference in fiction is based on fact or not. Many people find sitting upright a perfectly comfortable (or aesthetic, if you will) reading position. How do you know what I am not trying to do, or what I am not interested in, or what I am constrained to do? And how can you say that reading for pleasure "...should not be and cannot be... performed via computer"? I do it all the time. Further, I have found that I am much more comfortable reading a computer screen for long periods than I am reading a book for the same amount of time . If you have found a comfortable way to read a book, please tell me what it is. I always find myself adjusting lighting, rolling over, stretching my back, keeping my legs from falling asleep, etc. I am serious -- please e-mail me if you have a comfortable reading position in mind. At a computer terminal, the lighting is much less important, so I can sit at a more comfortable angle. Have you ever read fiction on a computer terminal? I have. I claim that you are faulting the type of material you choose to read on the computer, not the computer itself. I get all the pleasure out of reading fiction on a computer screen that you say I should get from reading in a book. Try it sometime. I maintain that you are completely out of line with your statement that "... reading for pleasure... cannot be... performed via computer." It sounds as if you have never tried it. Even if you have, the most damning thing you can say about it in good conscience is that you don't like it. How can you tell me with a straight face what is and isn't aesthetic?!? It gets worse, ladies and gentlemen! "Factual information... is not generally read for pleasure", you say?!? How could you possibly think this? I READ FACTUAL INFORMATION FOR PLEASURE ALL THE TIME!!! Don't you wonder what goes on in the world? Don't you enjoy reading newspapers? What about scientific non-fiction? Philosophy? Have you ever read anything at all?!? > The computer becomes a tool. Whether there is an aesthetic quality in the > operation of that tool is based more on personal attitude than on the > (factual) information being read. Except for your un-called-for use of the word "factual" again, this is exactly what I'm trying to say. I don't require that you like computers, read fiction on them, or read non-fiction for pleasure. But don't try to tell the world that I don't do these things. Don't even think of trying to tell them I shouldn't. Thank you. Robert Kennedy
gls@odyssey.ATT.COM (g.l.sicherman) (03/17/88)
Recently, DAVIDLI@SIMVAX.LABMED.UMN.EDU wrote: > Books are handy things. They don't require electricity. They can be taken > anywhere, anytime. They can be lent at little cost by virtue of the (slowly > dwindling) resources of the Public Library System. Unfortunately, they do require trees. Watch what happens when trees get more expensive than electricity! (And yes, technologically obsolete systems usually dwindle, sometimes ungracefully.) > Printed material is non-linear. I can flip from page 96 of Stewart Brand's > book _The Media Lab_ to page 99 in an instant. ... > CRT oriented material is linear. While it is true that I can 'flip' from > screen 96 to screen 99 of an on-line version of _The Media Lab_, I cannot > keep more than 24 lines of text on the screen at a time. David, you seem to be undermining your own argument. The CRT, being limited to 24 lines at a time, is not linear-homogeneous but mosaic. Random access works *better* on a CRT than in a book. Do you "skip around" in _Moby Dick_? Or Foote's history of the American Civil War? True, CRTs lack some graphic advantages of books. On the other hand, CRTs can represent *motion* far better than books can. Think about it ... Col. G. L. Sicherman
merchie.UUCP@seismo.css.gov (Anthony Wiggins) (03/17/88)
In light of the objections you have for using computers as a storage/reading/ pleasure medium for fictional material, I would like to point out advantages that can be immense. I have only read one "computer book", called Portal, released a year or two ago, a Science Fiction book about the human race taking the next step in evolution. Reading the "computer book" had an added dimension that I did not expect: the ability to selectively read and query about information pertaining to the story, background information on characters, technical information regarding the innovations placed forth in the story, geographical information, medical, political....you get the picture. The book was written to be read in a graphics environment, granted, but this book, without commenting on the author's skills as a writer, was absolutely fantastic in that you could immerse yourself in any degree in the story. Well, okay, in Portal, you were FORCED to cover everything, as the story was a puzzle in a sense. But there's no reason that a person should be forced to read it. If you're a layperson, you may have no desire to wade through the author's volumous writings on the mathematical basis for the innovations introduced, so why bore the reader with information that doesn't interest him? It means that you can write stories for any/all audiences, if using an electronic medium, instead of targeting a specific class of people, regional area, intellectual diversity, open-mindedness, whether they're male or female. It brings about in existence a new medium, simply different from the medium of paper books. Sure, stories that were expressly written for paper medium are going to lose something in the transition, as would an electronic book being transferred over to paper. It will be exciting if authors decide to pursue the electronic marketplace, writing stories expressly for the electronic audience. I could imagine that if an author had a point to make, an idea to prove, that he would be much more effective in an electronic book, as he could write different aspects of the book for the potentiallly diverse aspects of the reading audience. Allowing the reader to design and interactively control his reading environment would add challenges for the writer, certainly, and it would take longer to write a book, more thought would be required, but I think that the end result would be so much more effective. Any thoughts on the subject? Anthony Wiggins
jps@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Jeff P Szczerbinski) (03/26/88)
Recently, DAVIDLI@SIMVAX.LABMED.UMN.EDU wrote: > Books are handy things. They don't require electricity. They can be taken > anywhere, anytime. They can be lent at little cost by virtue of the (slowly > dwindling) resources of the Public Library System. Yes but who says that computer literature has to replace books? It's just another medium. Just like TV, radio, and the movies are all different mediums that came after books. And have any of them become a direct replacement for the book. Never! Then why should you base your whole argument on why a book is better than a computer? or why a computer is better than a book. They are different mediums of conveying the thoughts of a person or group of persons. Neither is better or worse. Everything is relevant to the task at hand and to your preferences. Use what is best for you and don't tell other people what is best for them. Jeff