Xref: utzoo alt.hypertext:853 comp.multimedia:369 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!evax!convex!cash From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) Newsgroups: alt.hypertext,comp.multimedia Subject: Re: Images vs. Text Message-ID: <1991Apr17.225701.26678@convex.com> Date: 17 Apr 91 22:57:01 GMT References: <1991Apr17.204748.8994@agate.berkeley.edu> Sender: newsadm@convex.com (news access account) Distribution: na Organization: The Instrumentality Lines: 32 Nntp-Posting-Host: muse.convex.com In article <1991Apr17.204748.8994@agate.berkeley.edu> thom@garnet.berkeley.edu (Thom Gillespie) writes: >The primary means of communication today is TV, print isn't even close, words >are the 'illustration' on TV, not pictures. Pictures aren't just useful, they >are indispensible. You're kidding, right? What do you mean, "TV is the primary means of communication today"? If drivel is communication, and the number of people watching the drivel decides whether it is "primary", then well, yes TV is a primary means of communication. Look, it all depends on what you want to communicate. If you want people to learn what it's like in the arctic, then a show about "The Land of the Polar Bear" might be just the thing. If you want to teach quantum physics, then pictures won't do. They won't do because the concepts of quantum physics are too abstract for pictures. >1 Question to Jim and the other 'text leaners': >Can you and do you draw? Yes and no. I can't draw freehand, but I _love_ to put illustrations in my books (software manuals) that I've created with packages like MacDraw or FrameMaker. Pictures have their place; they illustrate, they illuminate words. They don't replace words. Can you imagine having this discussion in pictures? -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist. | Peter Cash | (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein) |cash@convex.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~