23 Matching Annotations
  1. Aug 2017
  2. Feb 2017
    1. In fact, some media scholars argue that commonplace books and zibaldones were precursors to the Internet, which is similarly scrappy and mixed-up, rich in influences and perfectly willing to zig-zag between genres.

      A precursor to hypertext!

  3. Jan 2017
  4. Oct 2016
    1. Way back in the beginning of time, IBM's OS/2 Warp operating system shipped with a web browser (sorry, I can't remember its name) that would show your browsing history as an outline.
  5. Sep 2016
  6. Aug 2016
    1. As can be seen, the system we prescribe is largely composed of elements of various applications that already exist. Yet no system that we know of implements this vision entirely. Mind mapping tools, for instance, promote structure-based rather than sentence-based representation, but their data model (a tree) is too limiting to support the breadth of human thought. PersonalBrain supports a full graph model, but not transclusion, and thus every knowledge element can be seen only in a single context. Tinderbox’s transclusion overcomes this, but with a file-based architecture the limitations of which we have

      For anyone interested in what kind of (transclusive) hyperdocument systems there are available: this is an obscure review, along with individual programs' shortcomings.

    1. as much as I know that transmitting writing via cables and air is a hell of a lot easier and cheaper than transmitting video, I’m not sure I can really stand here and say that the writing is—or should be—primary.

      This argument, that technologists love writing because it’s easier for them, I love. It often gets cast as, writing is the grain of the web, what the media and the network does easily, without effort. A Dao of Textual Supremacy. But! Priority of Constituencies! Users > authors > specs. If the people want images, then images belong and images will win, even if they’re harder to deliver. See also, the GUI.

    2. I worry that the push to keep the web defined to words, while pragmatic and reasonable in many ways, may also be used to decide what stories get told, and what stories are heard.

      Coming off of the last ¶, is this about class? The essay (especially in its enthusiastic quoting and framing of Ze Frank) participates in the assumption that writing is practiced more by people of privilege, than other media. (Dunno how I think about that). At the same time, it says, that association is not causation, privelidge isn't worth, the writing isn't making the people better, and the “sophisticated” people writing aren't intrinsically better than their less textually literate, more gif-y, YouTube-y, (4-chan-y?) counterparts. Feels like there are many separate variables about people here all being lumped together under the categories "text" and "image" in ways that could maybe use a little teasing apart. Many image-based forms of expression on the internet are super elietist/privelidged/“classy”! Vimeo videos of artisanal crafts. The-Big-Picture-style, professional photojournalism. At the same time, a lot of writing is of course low-class and amature. Facebook posts from your aunt. Less so now, but blogs. As she mentions, SMS/Twitter. At the same time, the first time I read this essay, I bought her categorization, the lumping rang somewhat true? That mental image of flashing garish myspace for and of the people is pretty powerful. So I dunno.

    3. You can describe what happens in each of those videos in words, but those words will never equal watching them.

      YES. Images have unique powers!

    4. There’s more than a hint of disparagement and elitism in that saying: everyone should have taken up writing, which is obviously superior to reading or watching or (gasp!) consuming. And I worry that that same sentiment creeps in when we argue the supremacy of text over image on the web.

      Conflating a producer/consumer elitism with type-of-media elitism. The “old saw” seems to be that we should have become active empowered producers but instead we all settled into lazy consumption; not that words > images.

    5. I think that history is telling: in that, given a canvas on which to play, many people opted to express themselves with color and image, often spending much more effort there then on the words, and often in surprising ways.

      The web should be what people make it and the people want colors and images

    6. And yet:

      Counter-argument strengthened by making a strong argument for the other side first

    7. So, okay, as a design constraint, the web sure does look like it’s text all the way down, and all this other stuff is extra. And I’m distinctly sympathetic to that notion: I happen to like text over other mediums, not only as a reader, but as someone who doesn’t particularly like to spend all day waiting for pages to load. I also like text because it’s more accessible than other mediums, and more easily archived. If the web is primarily text, then accessibility and preservation are both easy (if not trivial) problems to solve.

      Arguments for text:

      • acessibility
      • weight
      • easy to archive
      • personal bias
    8. is hypertext constrained to text?

      Central question of the piece

  7. Oct 2015
    1. Example 10

      This is not defining a property / predicate; it is describing a dereferenceable link. Strange intermingling of describing material (links) and meaning (predicates).

      Also: is this thing a Link or should it just be a Resource?

      Weird tension between identifying resources (REST view) and identifying predicates / types of relationships (RDF view).

    1. Essential features flow seamlessly between online and offline modes; examples include cross-references, user annotations, access to online databases, as well as licensing and rights management.
  8. Sep 2014
    1. Most systems av ailable today use a single database.

      Even after all these years...this is essentially still true.

    2. Hy per Card

      Anyone else think Hyper Card was amazing?!