Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!think!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!hplabs!hplabsz!taylor
From: jrk@computer-lab.cambridge.ac.uk (Robert Kennedy)
Newsgroups: comp.society
Subject: Re: The Aesthetics of Computers
Message-ID: <1470@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM>
Date: 23 Jan 88 01:32:19 GMT
Sender: taylor@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM
Organization: University of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Lines: 68
Approved: taylor@hplabs

Dave Taylor recently wrote:

> 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.

Oh? I don't know about that. What about the aesthetics of good programming,
or good composition? Granted, a bookshelf full of computers isn't as 
pretty in some people's eyes as a bookshelf full of beautifully-bound
gold-edged volumes...

I don't think all that much work is needed to personalize an electronic
posting. All you have to do be able to write well (I realize this is asking
a bit much of some people, but it's not asking TOO much.) and with style.
The CONTENT is what's important. Are you saying that Melville's "Moby Dick"
becomes a different work when reprinted in a different typeface?  Surely
not... To me, it's the same novel, with all the nuances of Melville's
style and personality, even when I read it in a typeface he never intended.
Even if I read it from a computer screen. Even if someone reads it aloud to
me.

Furthermore, you should know that the word "inherent" is really, really 
dangerous.  How can you say a machine, more than a bunch of paper and ink, 
is "cold and insensitive" in some fundamental way?  All you can say is 
that you like it less.  You can try to explain why, but don't try to say 
that your feelings are inherent in anything but you.

I think this dislike of yours is completely culturally-based.  Some people 
view telephone conversation as the most personal means of long-distance 
communication.  How many people would have agreed with them just one 
all-too-short century ago?  Not very many.  Resistance to the ubiquity of 
phones was initially very strong because they were seen as "inherently 
cold and insensitive".  Today, they are seen as "reach out and touch" by 
most people... Socialization.  ALL socialization. ALL culturally-based. 
NOTHING inherent.

Don't get me wrong. At the same time as I say all this, I am an aspiring 
calligrapher, and I do appreciate good typefaces and other aesthetic
aspects of the presentation of the written word. But we shouldn't confuse
visual pleasure or personal reading convenience with writing style or content.

Also, my method of composing is pretty different.  I find that some of my
best thoughts decay faster that I can write them by hand, so I am better 
off doing all my composing and editing at the computer terminal, where I 
am limited only by my typing speed (which is about two to three times my 
handwriting speed).  Your desire to compose at the terminal and edit away 
from the terminal is quite alright for you.  I don't do it that way very 
much, though.  I usually compose and edit until I think I have it right. 
If the document (or whatever) is long, I know how silly I am to think I 
have it right, so I proofread, fix, and then print it out.  If the document 
is short, I might print it out straightaway.  I then read the printed 
version and make sure it's right.  I frequently find typographical errors,
but little else that I want to change.  

This brings up an interesting point. I would rather do most of the editing 
at the terminal, but seeing the work in a different typeface (as when it's 
printed out) allows me to catch typos that my eye refuses to notice when 
I read on the screen.  I cannot tell whether the important thing here is 
that I have changed typefaces or that I have changed media.  Your 
conjecture would probably be that it is because I have changed media and 
am now reading a paper copy.  I cannot argue -- it may be true.

And there you have it... Thanks for listening.

Was this letter long enough to get printed out and read, or did you read it
on the CRT? :-)

Robert Kennedy