29 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. The idea of a web browser being something we can comprehend, of a web page being something that more people can make, feels exciting to me.

      my personal hope is that we can build a more sensible coherent web, that exudes the machines inside of it, by better harkening towards custom elements ("webcomponents"). move the page from being a bunch of machines in javascript, to a bunch of machines in hypertext.

      and then build pages that start to expose & let the user play with the dom. start to build experiences that bridge the gap into the machine/page.

      and keep going. keep going. build wilder web experiences. build more machines. and keep building battlesuits for the user, out of more componenets, out of more web, to let them wrestle & tangle with & manipulate & experiment & hack on & see & observe & learn about the truthful, honest, direct hypertext that we all navigate.

  2. Sep 2020
    1. The Web Changed All

      I am not sure whether the web is seen here as the universal hypermedia system it is.

    2. Bush clearly understood the potential in managing content for a range of uses; unfortunately, the technology did not yet exist for his conceptual browsing machine. But it did sow the seeds for thinking about content in ways that we find familiar today.

      The reference to Bush shows, that content strategy and the history of hypertext are closely related.

  3. Apr 2020
    1. Wiki is perhaps the only web idiom that is not a child of BBS culture. It derives historically from pre-web models of hypertext, with an emphasis on the pre. The immediate ancestor of wiki was a Hypercard stack maintained by Ward Cunningham that attempted to capture community knowledge among programmers. Its philosophical godfather was the dead-tree hypertext A Pattern Language written by Christopher Alexander in the 1970s.
    1. Although certainly it would be folly to becomeenmired in imitating paper systems and paper-basedpractices, it is important to look beyond the existing on-linefacilities for readers

      This is in clear opposition to the ideas of Brust and Rothkugel in their 2007's "On Anomalies in Annotation Systems", where they claim that "a new annotation system is doomed to fail if it is based on the pen-and-paper annotation paradigm only".



    1. other text

      George Landow refers to these texts linked by hyperlinks as "lexia". This is also the term used by Catherine Marshall in "Toward an ecology of hypertext annotation".

  4. Dec 2019
  5. Nov 2019
    1. According to Raskin, too many people working on hypertext have concentrated on mechanisms instead of on the user interface. It is necessary to look at the entire spectrum of interaction and to do continuous user testing.
  6. Sep 2019
    1. No modern software engineer would choose to work without an IDE

      I doubt so, unless emacs and vim are also counted as IDEs. IDEs are useful but they build on tools which can be used independently (editor, compiler, debugger...).

    1. NOTE: This annotation is a contemplation/criticism of a particular style of linking and is no way a reflection of my opinion about the author's work and ideas, which I respect greatly.

      I was contemplating why the use of links in this paper bothered me so much, and it led to some interesting questions/thoughts.

      (I know many others within the hypertext literature community have written about the many (multivariate) semantic functions of links, but I have admittedly yet to read that research, so I apologize if my extemporaneous thoughts on the subject are banal.)

      The destinations of most links in this paper (take the whole Abstract for example) are highly ambiguous. As the reader I experience curiosity, yes, but also a certain amount of anxiety about the constant choices I must make and the impossibility of dispelling the unknown. This is made considerably worse on mobile where there is no "hover" state to reveal the destination url. Even on desktop the urls are all routed through researchgate.net and thus require some additional cognitive effort to parse the final destination. Upon exploring some of these links, we find that the type of destination is also highly diverse/multivariate:

      • weaving meaning → presentation notes
      • Things → blog post
      • Personal Knowledge → blog post
      • augmenting their tacit awareness → annotation of conference session
      • Knowledge Augmentation → academic paper

      Thus even after following these links one is not able to derive any meaningful expectations about where the links might lead. There is a double confusion: the initial ambiguity and the { patternlessness / resistance to learning }. In my experience as the reader, and perhaps I am not the only one, I feel anxious, split, and ultimately mired in the heap of heterogeneous connections that I am being presented with. The nature/style of link usage in this paper works against its basic coherency. They land as distractions. Only through an application of will may I forge ahead to read the paper in its (short) entirety.

      Perhaps, you might suggest, I am doing it all wrong; I should read the paper through, and then go back to explore connections. Inline/embedded links still represent an improvement over traditional footnotes as I do not have to navigate back and forth between them. Yes, how am I as the reader to resist the tempting azure, the smooth and confident understroke, of the link? It is like going for a hike and suffering either blind adherence to an arbitrary path, haunted by the mystery of untaken side trails, or the aimlessness of tangential indulgence that leaves you a hundred meters from the trailhead.

      Context, it must be acknowledged, is important. If this were a piece of literary fiction, the reader may very well have the expectation that their journey will be filled with mysterious choices; all the better, as the choices were designed with one's reading pleasure in mind! There is nothing but the happy exploration of the branching narrative. Yet, this is an academic paper (at least presented as such), and so the reader expects to learning something, to acquire a deeper understanding of a subject, or at least to broaden one's sensemaking horizons. The constant branches might as well be rocks in the path that the reader is constantly tripping over, knowing the trail must offer some glimpses of natural beauty if only they could focus on the journey.

      It all begs the question: Who are the links really for? They represent the author's mental model, the author's priorities. It is like being invited to peruse someone's home: "Yes, yes, feel free to look around, as you will!" The reader will no doubt form their own mental model of the disparate data. Yet the stasis of the document resists the reader's creative impulses; it won't move for them. Text will not rearrange, links will not form. That power was granted to the author. Now, the reader clumsily explores the frozen statue of the author's creation.

      Let us not fall into the false choice between staid nonambiguity and scattershot freedom. As we turn our awareness inward, we see the richness of consciousness, of feeling, of the interpretative process, of apprehension as it miraculously unfolds. It is structured, it is emotional, and it is limited only by our imagination. Reaching into the depths of our phenomenology provides the basis for a principled and decidedly human topology of hypertext that points the way to truly augmenting human intelligence.

    1. A node is an elementary document whose content expresses a single idea: it is a semantic unit . . . Links are the main way to organize a document in a non-sequential way . . . In the case of a text, the anchor locates a “location” inside the text, that is to say a semantic unit of lower level than the node
      • node: elementary document, single idea
      • links: organize document in non-sequential way
      • anchor: location inside the text
    2. ‘Hyper-’ refers to structure and not size

      etymology of the word ‘hyper’

    1. Indexed the proceedings for Hypertext '87, '91, '93, and ECHT '94 conferences. Currently am creating a global index and hypertext for all the SigWeb (formerly SigLink) hypertext conferences since 1987

      We could index it in Wikidata as part of WikiCite.

  7. Jul 2019
  8. Mar 2019
    1. It would be better than hypercards

      I am famous for my non-prescient thinking around technology. I too was on BBS's at the time and when I heard about the Hypertext Protocol and the internet, I told my wife that it wasn't going to go any where. I mean why would somebody go through all that trouble when you could just download a hypercard stack from a BBS, edit it, and then re-upload it to the bulletin board?

  9. Dec 2018
    1. Let me introduce the word "hypertext"***~ to mean a body of written or pic- torial material interconnected in such a complex way that it could not conveniently be presented or represented on paper.

      I love that Ted was prescient enough to give this 5 stars.

  10. Oct 2017
    1. Hypertext systems exploit the interactive potential of computers to reconstruct text not as a fixed series of symbols, but as a variable-access database in which any discursive unit may possess multiple vectors of association (see Conklin; Joyce; Slatin)

      Definition of hypertext.

    2. With Xanadu, Nelson invalidates technological abjection, advancing an unabashedly millenarian vision of technological renaissance in which the system shall set us free.

      Hypertext as liberating.

  11. Jun 2017
    1. But true freedom from the tyranny of the line is perceived as only really possible now at last with the advent of hypertext, written and read on the computer, where the line in fact does not exist unless one invents and implants it in the text.

      Hypertext as opposite of "the line," the sentencem the novel, linear narrative.

  12. Mar 2017
    1. Both the article in itself and its design in DJMP raise questions about the architecture and materiality of the book and publishing, including academic publishing, through its discussion of artist books and open access. The interesting discussion is of course how ways of publishing, textual formats, ways of writing, editing and reading relate to different kinds of politics, e.g. institutional, economic, ways of ascertaining quality, etc. These are very important questions, both in global politics (e.g. the discussions on ‘fake news’ and its relation to social media), in institutional politics (e.g. the standards and quality assessment of academic publishing) and in art and literature (e.g. whether readers are able and willing to actually read and understand different forms of texts). In general, it is a question of how the text mediates and transforms the reading, how meaning is produced and how/whether it reaches an audience, whether it is productive of e.g. meaning, knowledge and/or action. It is a discussion of the text between mediator and tool.

      It is noteworthy how little has happened after several decades of digital publishing and a plethora of death sentences for books and print: Even though some things have changed and are changing e.g. WWW’s ‘non-linear’ and labyrinthine, multi-cursal (Aarseth 1997) hypertext and the collaborative writing tools and platforms like wikis and social media are part of our everyday textual culture, we still have books and journals. Why? Is it because, as Stuart Moulthrop suggested already in 1991, that although hypertext affords new visions about a shared writing space, the responsibility for changes of this magnitude come from a diverse elite (of software developers, literary theorists, legislators, capitalists) who despite their differences remain allegiant to the institutions of intellectual property (the book, the library, the university, the publishing house). In other words, Moulthrop suggests that “it seems equally possible that engagement with interactive media will follow the path of reaction, not revolution.” (Moulthroup 2003 (1991), Andersen and Pold 2014). Is it because of institutional conservatism, because readers are conservative and slowly adapting (as the rather slow development of hypertext seems to suggest), is it a political battle (as the current discussions of the role of digital media, social media versus traditional media might suggest)? And to which extend is it a battle we should go for, if it includes breaking down the kinds of authority that comes with established publication formats and editorial processes (at least the current political climate raises some concerns).

      I know that many of these concerns are afterthoughts to an article and a design done before the current situation, and in this sense, they are more reflections that might be relevant for further work. However, the questions remain, whether hypertext and collaborative authoring always leads to more freedom and productive reading/writing? Whether deconstructing the order of the text and its extended argument is always a good thing? We have of course examples of great hypertextual formats that function well as tools and presentation of knowledge, e.g. the encyclopedia, but maybe there are also good reasons to preserve the extended argument of the book and the article? Today it seems simply wrong to assert that "hypertext does not permit a tyrannical, univocal voice” (Landow 1992) faced with Trump and Wilders’ tweets. Consequently, I think, the argument of the article and its design could relate to the history of hypertext and electronic literature, though the discussion of artist books and open access publishing is also relevant.

      The implementation in DJMP is in many ways exemplary and manages to present the article in nice ways, including the posters, the ability to comment and follow keywords. It allows its reader to access and use the text in different ways, and gives the valuable possibility of commenting and reading other people’s comments. In this it also follows paths from hypertext and electronic literature/digital culture, e.g. Electronic Book Review of A Peer Reviewed Journal About_. The design in many ways affords that it can do as it ‘preaches’, and in this way experiments with different ways of publishing academic texts. This is needed and current academia is not open enough to these kinds of experiments, that are, as argued, much more than making open access a homogeneous project – there is a need for an ongoing critical struggle that includes the forms of publishing. This is necessary, also to reach the popular masses on Twitter and Facebook! Currently, it is a problem, that standardizations within academia driven by STEM standards does not invite for such experiments that would in many cases not even be accepted as examples of academic publication. Also, I want to finish emphasizing that my discussion above is mainly stirred by the qualities of the publication, the important questions and reflections it raises.


      Andersen, C. U. and S. B. Pold (2014). "Post-digital Books and Disruptive Literary Machines: Digital Literature Beyond the Gutenberg and Google Galaxies." Formules 2014(18): 164-183.<br> Landow, G. P. (1992). Hypertext the convergence of contemporary critical theory and technology. Baltimore, Md, Johns Hopkins University Press.<br> Moulthroup, S. (2003 (1991)). You Say You Want a Revolution. The New Media Reader. N. W.-F. N. Montfort. Cambridge, Massachusetts & London, England, The MIT Press: 691-704.<br> Aarseth, E. J. (1997). Cybertext perspectives on ergodic literature. Baltimore, Md., Johns Hopkins University Press.

  13. Aug 2016
  14. Apr 2016
  15. Jan 2016
    1. traditional narrative time line vanishes

      I'm interested in hypertext (and annotation) before this point, before fully rupturing the narrative, but somehow co-existing with it...

  16. Oct 2015
    1. it tells us little about sales of actual ebooks

      Or about the broader context for reading. Often strikes me that we still take the “book” concept as a given. Texts come in many forms but we’re stuck with this model of packaging texts by length. Much of literary postmodernism had to do with breaking free of those boundaries on our thinking. But eBooks often reproduce the linearity and boundedness of pre-hypertext “books”. Landow’s book was first published in 1991. What happened in the last 25 years?

  17. Sep 2015
    1. people now think hypertext means the web

      See Nelson's reply to Tim Berners Lee about crediting him in Weaving the Web.

    2. In 1960 I had a vision of a world-wide system of electronic publishing, anarchic and populist, where anyone could publish anything and anyone could read it.  (So far, sounds like the web.)  But my approach is about literary depth-- including side-by-side intercomparison, annotation, and a unique copyright proposal.  I now call this "deep electronic literature" instead of "hypertext," since people now think hypertext means the web.
  18. Oct 2013