Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!ames!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!hplabsz!taylor
From: ix665@sdcc6.UCSD.EDU (Sue Raul)
Newsgroups: comp.society
Subject: Re: The Aesthetics of Computers
Message-ID: <1449@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM>
Date: 20 Jan 88 08:05:28 GMT
Sender: taylor@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM
Lines: 255
Approved: taylor@hplabs

Let's start with some definitions:

from my Oxford American Dictionary:

     aesthetics - branch of philosophy dealing with the principles of
	beauty in art.

What does the OAD say about beauty? -

     beauty - n. 1. a combination of qualities that give pleasure to the
	sight or other senses or to the mind. 2. a person or thing having
	this, a beautiful woman.  3. a fine specimen; "here's a beauty."
	4. a beautiful feature; "that's the beauty of it", the point
	that gives satisfaction.

What does the OAD say about art? -

     art - n. 1. the production of something beautiful, skill or ability
     in suchwork. 2. works such as paintings or sculptures produced by
     skill. 3. any practical skill, a knack, "the art of sailing". 

And I'll add a couple more: write, paper, CRT

     write - v. 1. to make letters or other symbols on a surface,
	especially with a pen or pencil on paper. 2. to form (letters or
	words or a message etc.) in this way; "write a check", write
	the appropriate figures and words and signature etc. to make it
	valid. 3. to compose in written form for publication, to be an
	author, "write books" or "music; he makes a living by
	writing." 4. to write and send a letter, "write to me often."
	5. to write to, "I will write you soon." 6. to indicate
	clearly, "guilt was written all over her."

     paper - n. 1. a substance manufactured in thin sheets from wood
	fiber, rags, etc., used for writing or printing or drawing on or
	for wrapping things. 2. a newspaper. 3. wallpaper. 4. a document;
	"a ship's papers", documents establishing its identity etc. 5.
	an essay or dissertation, especially one read to a learned society.

from Webster's NewWorld Dictionary of Computer Terms:

     CRT - abbreviation for CATHODE RAY TUBE  a screen like that of a
	television receiver, used in computer systems for viewing data: it
	typically displays 20 to 24 lines of data with 60 to 80 characters
	per line. A CRT may be used in place of a printer and, with an
	attached keyboard, forms a TERMINAL

Based on these definitions, I understand that:

	Aesthetics relates to beauty which relates to pleasure.
	Art relates to beauty (which relates to pleasure) and skill.
	Paper and CRT's are things.

Now to your article:

> The discussion of hypertext brought to mind something that I've noticed
> for a long time about my interaction with computers; there is no sense
> of aesthetic or kinesthetic to them.

But I'd say CRT's *do* have aesthetics and kinesthetics to them.  While 
this varies depending on a number of factors, not the least of which is 
the user's typing ability, there are a number of aesthetic and kinesthetic
experiences involved in CRT use.

There's rhythm, and the sound of the keys being hit - not all sounding 
the same either - an aural sensory experience.

There's the kinesthetic of the up and down motion of the fingers, with 
a little side to side thrown in; finger choreography.

There's the "pleasure" of hitting something and getting something you 
intended, sort of like enjoying the kinesthetic feel of playing the piano 
while enjoying the sound of the music.  The "pleasure" of the visual 
replaces that of the aural with CRT's, rather than hearing the right 
notes, as on a piano, you see the right letters, see your meaning take 
shape.

(I'm not comparing the experience of playing the piano to that of writing 
on a CRT, by the way. I'm comparing the similarity of the human action 
of a *known* aesthetic experience (playing the piano) to the non-aesthet-
ically-defined experience of using a CRT.  The line gets drawn when the 
*results* are compared - the 'music' from a piano versus the 'words' from
a CRT.  While comparisons of art forms can be made, they always reach 
a limit where the individual medium must be evaluated independently with 
its own criteria. This is beyond the realm of this discussion)

> I say this sitting at home, glancing at a printout of the last few
> issues of the Computers and Society Digest, and comparing the `feel'
> of the printed page with the `feel' of the CRT.  Not only is there
> no comparision as far as the readability and quality of typographical
> display, but the computer seems an inherently cold and insensitive thing.

I'd say this is very subjective. It seems to me you prefer the experience
of 'holding' what you read on paper to 'not having anything to hold' with 
a CRT. I would say that's subjective and cannot be given as a universal 
advantage of paper. Some people may enjoy the motions of hitting keys, 
finger dancing, to get new screenfuls. As for the computer (CRT) being 
inherently cold and insensitive - what's the difference between hardware 
and paper in that regard?

In fact, a CRT can be quite warm - if it's been on for a while.  A piece 
of paper is just a form of material that has a common use.  A CRT is a 
machine (a form of materials) that has a common use. Surely, both paper
and CRT's can be put to other uses than their common ones.  One can 'write' 
with both.  One can fly a paper airplane, make origami, play paper 
baseball, wear paper dresses (remember those!?), eat paper, wipe up a spill,
etc. With a CRT one can work on a computer, generate heat to warm up cold 
hands, hit it and make interesting diverse sounds for entertainment, draw 
on it and make art, take it apart and put its pieces in a pleasing order 
on the floor, drop it from a tenth story window and see how far the parts 
fly, use it as a paper weight, etc.

A couple of things that make paper unattractive (I've experienced all these):

	Paper cuts.

	Ink or paper (usually textbooks) that stinks.

	Bindings that fall apart.

	Printouts that fall and unravel and tear and are hard to manage.

	Having to hold the paper to read it, hands aren't free to do 
	something else (like scratch an itch).

A couple of things that make CRT's unattractive (I've experienced all these):

	Sticky or broken keys.

	Can be tiring on the eyes.

	Typing can be slowed down by high load averages (a computer 
	problem more than a CRT problem per se).

	Noisy phone lines (for modem/terminal hookups).  [the 'outside 
	intervention' factor that would only occur with paper if you were, 
	say, writing outdoors and a bird relieves itself on your work.]

	Can't take it with you (that's changing with portable small 
	computers but is still a problem if you're a modem/terminal).

Aesthetically, both paper and CRTs have their advantages and disadvantages 
(see my next point).

> Look, for example, at the work necessary to personalize individual
> electronic postings, compared to the inherently `personal' feel of a
> handwritten letter . . .

Granted, an individual's handwriting is very personal.  If this were the 
main tenet of your argument, I would stop here and grant you that 
handwriting is more personal than typing, if only because the product 
will be "visually" unique from individual to individual, and therefore 
more 'inherently' personal.  But then we're not 'reading' the writing, 
but 'looking at it' as if it were an 'art work.'  At that point we're not
using 'writing' to convey meaning, but as visual stimulus.  Perhaps there 
is an experience of this sort when one reads a foreign language in a 
strange alphabet that one doesn't understand and one says, 'what a 
beautiful document' based upon the 'look' of the symbols, the page, the 
stone, whatever, but I'd argue that if we read a familiar language, the 
'input' is as much the 'meaning' of what is written as the 'look' of it.

e.e. cummings played with the idea of words, punctuations, and space 
intermingling with each other, for instance. If it were to become 
incomprehensible, the visual experience would be all that was left.  
With just a little bit of meaning (rules of the language) remaining in 
the relationships, the reader sees both the visual designs *and* the 
meanings. [like hearing "twinkle twinkle little star" embedded in a 
Haydn symphony - you get it all.]

But once we 'understand' the meaning 'behind' the symbols 'writing' is 
more than (just) putting squiggly lines on paper, or CRTs, it is the 
communication of ideas, in words, that are to be read *out of real time*, 
whether by someone else, or by yourself at a later time.  For this, paper
and CRT's are equals, with subjective experiences and preferences of course.

On your second point -

I don't think of it as a lot of work to personalize electronic mail/postings.
Personal style is inherent in writing words: order, punctuation, using one's 
vocabulary, etc.  It's natural if you know the rules of the language. Maybe 
for some people it's work, but one can say that about handwritten letters 
too. For some it may be work to keep it legible, to correct mistakes, to 
keep a flow of ideas going at a slow pace.  Different kinds of work, for 
sure, but not more or less, or more or less preferable (except as
subjectively defined).

Are you putting more value on the way something 'looks' than the way it 
reads?  Valuing 'handwriting,' the fact that someone physically touches 
a pen and paper over the content, someone's ideas?  There's a whole world 
of appreciation for that in autograph collecting.  That's fine and 
there's no competition from CRTs in this case, but I was reading more 
into your article about 'aesthetics' of CRT use,as explained in my
opening responses.

> Perhaps some of it is culturally based, however, since I was raised
> with an appreciation of books, typography, and writing.  Nevertheless,
> it surely is a more difficult boundary for computers to cross than
> something like `creating hypertext links' is.

Again, if you're talking about the "hand touching the page" versus the 
"ideas being communicated" I'll agree that the boundary exists.  
However, why is one prefered over another?  Touching pen and paper 
and typing on a CRT both utilize are two functions of kinesthetic 
experience; to touch and to move. 

Writing with pen and paper uses *different* motions (utilizing the linear 
motions on a horizontal plane) and has a different touch feeling (that 
of the pen and the paper) than a CRT (utilizing up/down motions, the 
feel of the keys/buttons). But I don't think one is inherently more 
pleasing (beautiful, aesthetically rewarding) than the other, unless 
one is more skilled at one over the other (refer to definition of art).

> I do wonder how common my sentiments are - by way of example, is 
> there anyone here who prefers reading long documents on the computer
> to printing it out and reading the paper copy?

I may be one. It depends on how long, on whether I want to read it for 
a long time at once. I prefer a well bound book to a 200 page printout 
that has a chance of falling and becoming unmanagable. I prefer a 
computer file to such a printout if it's formatted and the CRT can 
produce the graphics of italics, underlying, bold, etc., as called for 
and as will represent the author's intentions. I definitely hate 
bursting a printout and tearing off the paper guides!

> Hmmm...as I think about it, I realize that there *is* a category of
> textual information that I prefer to have on-line; program listings.
> By extension, I surmise that non-linear information is easier to
> digest in an environment that supports *finding* a specific reference
> quickly (e.g. hypertext).

Well, what is linear or non-linear?  Don't you go back and forth reading 
from paper?  It's only in the "look for" - "/" - situation that it might 
be faster, therefore better to use a CRT. (See..., I'm not arguing *for* 
CRTs, but for *objectivity* about materials and their usages).

> So where are we?  Information that is intended to be digested in a
> linear fashion, like prose, is apparently easier to appreciate and
> enjoy when printed out, and non-linear information, like program
> listings are easier to appreciate when on-line.

Not all printed books are intended to be digested in a linear
fashion, however, so you can't generalize about the aesthetics
of paper vs. CRTs from *that* premise.

> Another example pops into mind; when I work on articles, I always
> use a computer for composition, but significant draft changes are
> almost always done by printing out the text and editing by hand
> with a pen.  I find it easier to think about what I'm say, and how
> I'm saying it, when it's on paper.

Hm, can we actually agree on something? I prefer composing (in words, 
that is) on-line too.  For large scale editing, yes, I do the same with
a printout and pen in hand. (whaddya know!)

Sue Raul