From Jakobs article, I gleaned the definition of Hypertext:
"Hypertext will, therefore, be defined as an on or offline accessible, functionally determined subnet of modules with a certain communicative purpose, organized by an overarching thematic idea." (Jakobs)
So...the web? Text online or on-screen in general? I think... And yet for all of the explanation in the article, I still couldn't put that understanding into a more comprehensive line of thought than that, until I read Sosnoski's article.
I feel that the direction of this post aligns itself with what I wrote about last time. Sometimes I wonder if I really am odd and too much old-fashioned when it comes to technology on a screen. Sosnoski's article started out by describing how much he truly enjoys reading on a screen, and ended with how he thinks it will become more popular as is become more aesthetically pleasing (i.e, the comfy chair, fireplace, etc) - which it already has. Maybe it's because of the negative experience I have with reading on a screen (eye issues and the migraine like), but I don't think that's it.
Part of it lies with this quote: "Good Writing is often distinguished from bad writing on the grounds of coherence." (Sosnoski, 5). It takes me far longer to read something from a computer screen than it does from actual paper; when on my computer, I constantly have to reread passages, as if the set-up distracts me. It seems much less coherent to me - whether or not the writing is good or bad. Maybe because I don't have something in my hands to keep them grounded in the subject I'm currently reading?Or maybe it's just because I have trouble focusing and am also inclined to dislike reading on screens.
There's a paragraph towards the end of the article that I want to believe: "I believe that a more sensible view sees; hyper-readmg, whether exploratory or constructive, as another way of reading (and writing), which is not likely to supplant the ones we already have since they accomplísh different objectives." (Sosnoski, 7)
But do they always? All I can think about is the little 1st and 2nd grade students I know in my hometown who told me they gave up their kindles/nooks for Lent, to which all I could think was, Why aren't they reading from physical BOOKS at that age?
Whether that's a parenting decision or a dialogue between the way children used to read, the way they are reading, and the way the will read, I'm not sure.
Sosnoski's comment about hyper-reading not replacing more traditional modes of reading also caught my attention. I understand the points Sosnoski makes in his article about the differences commonly found between traditional and electronic texts. He speaks of the skimming of electronic texts compared to more prolonged reading strategies common when examining print material (167), of the decreased volume of words compared to pictures in hypertexts (169), of user created content in hypertexts compared to unmodified content in print materials (171), and more.
ReplyDeleteIn spite of these differences, I think Sosnoski fails to address a key point. Electronic text users are perfectly capable of creating texts that mirror traditional paper works, but they choose not to. They must prefer the benefits of online writing and reading strategies, or most websites would be full of text with few graphics or links. In short, I think hypertexts are a new method of writing, reading, and learning which could conceivably one day accomplish the same objectives as traditional reading in a different way. This could make traditional texts expendable.
In the last few years, I have heard a lot about replacing the vast number of textbooks in public schools with electronic versions. This would be a very large change and is not likely to happen in the near future. However, the idea makes sense in the long term. Students could read textbooks, take notes, and even take quizzes and write papers all on the same device. Books could also be much cheaper if shipping and the cost of materials were eliminated. Will we see the day when tablets are used in classrooms? I do not know, but it does not bode well for print publications if we do.
This is a problem that computer tech have been trying to solve ever since it has occurred. I recently saw an ad for a new Kindle "Paper." The screen is supposed to look exactly like paper and place less stress on the readers eyes. It seems like a simple solution, but has taken a long time to be developed. It would appear that technology companies have been pushing for everyone to assimilate to computer screens other than adapt towards the paper "look." It has missed its mark for some, however. And you sound like one of them Autumn. Kindle may finally be attempting to bridge that gap and convert the nay-sayers.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to consider how much we have "adopted" from computer technology, though. To label them all would take forever but it includes a lot of categories that end in hypertext. These adaptations are like viruses; they take with a majority of the population, but some are immune. However, just like a virus, the commercial industry adapts to infect others to their ideas and gadgets. Better get that flu shot Autumn, the Kindle Paper is looking infectious.