? (Is this question mark just note-TAKING to remember?)

and they don’t even question what should be learned, but just avoid that question and go on as always.

Note that he doesn't say 'learn connections'. I think that's a big difference. See also my blog post

I.e., more browsing than searching, and plenty of serendipity.

"better than Gopher" because, with Gopher you went from one file to the navigation page and then to the next file. But more confusing.

Another small difference: Inserting such a fuse in today's mindmapping apps is a pain because they urge us into the tree structure.

While much of this subsection may look like ConceptMapping, this dual screen technique is clearly beyond. But it was never really leveraged because the doctrine of the Split Attention Effect was carried over from the paper world.

My associative trails lead me to the 'cognitive plausibility' of hypertext, and to the mythbusters who have soon eradicated it before it could bear fruit. For example Dillon, A. (1996). Myths, misconceptions, and an alternative perspective on information usage and the electronic medium. In J.-F. Rouet, J. J. Levonen, A. Dillon, & R. Spiro, (Eds.), Hypertext and cognition (pp. 25-42). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, cited e.g. here.

and plan-change

This seemingly banal rearranging plays a big role in the report. Since then, we focussed on logistics such as transmitting and storing of information. Isn't this much more banal? Incremental rearranging also enables the "freedom and power of disorderly processes" (below, 2c5f5)

He puts the details on the right, and the overview on the left, as we still do with folder navigation or message lists. But he allocates the larger part to the overview while we think we must privilege the details, at the expense of the overview.

I think our task is to find such small differences, which might give us a hint about where it went wrong.