Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!ut-sally!pyramid!hplabs!hplabsc!taylor From: taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) Newsgroups: mod.comp-soc Subject: Re: Computer detracting from effective communication? Message-ID: <396@hplabsc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 1-Jul-86 15:11:56 EDT Article-I.D.: hplabsc.396 Posted: Tue Jul 1 15:11:56 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 2-Jul-86 06:24:10 EDT Reply-To: utzoo!henry Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories Lines: 59 Approved: taylor@hplabs -------- This article is from utzoo!henry and was received on Fri Jun 27 18:28:37 1986 -------- Bruce Sesnovich writes, in part: > Before word processors and electronic mail existed, important letters or > documents were usually handwritten and hand-corrected, often in several > drafts, before being typed and mailed. The typing of the letter represented > a finalizing and codifying process which encouraged well thought-out > communication. Care needed to be taken, since a single error could > necessitate re-typing the entire letter or document. This sort of thing has been an active topic of discussion recently among professional writers. The argument has validity. There is another side to it, however: quite often, when documents were prepared by the traditional means, the author refrained from fixing minor problems or making modest improvements precisely *because* there was too much overhead. More often than not, the alternative to error-free typing was not re-typing, but living with the inevitable mistakes. The price of being a perfectionist was very high in pre-computer days, and many were unwilling to pay it. Sometimes the high cost of a new version encouraged well thought-out communication; more often it encouraged tolerance of poorly thought-out communication, because doing better was too expensive. (Enraged king holding a piece of paper: "Torture the author of this memo until he explains what it means!") The argument is almost precisely analogous to that of the advocates of batch operation over time-sharing: "time-sharing encourages sloppiness, because it makes life too easy". In fact, time-sharing, like word processing, is neutral: it facilitates *either* sloppy work *or* good work. Instant turnaround encourages sloppy workers to just bash away until they get it more-or-less right, but it also encourages careful workers not to settle for second best. Most professional writers who have switched to word-processing technology feel that it has *improved* the net quality of their writing, by reducing the practical problems of revision and improvement. Note that these are people who make their living selling documents, and hence have strong incentives to produce professional-quality output. Far too many fingers are being pointed at the machinery used to do the work, and far too few at the users of the machinery. Considering the rate of functional near-illiteracy among high-school graduates (not to mention corporate management!), is it really surprising that poorly-done documents abound? Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry P.S. There is another aspect that just occurred to me. If phone calls cost $100 each, clearly there would be great incentive to plan them well. But many people would stop using telephones entirely, even in emergencies. Easing communication encourages people to communicate. Both the increased volume and the inexperience of novice communicators cause problems, and new ways of dealing with the problems may be needed. Overall, though, the change may be a good thing.