Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!hplabs!hplabsz!taylor
From: DAVIDLI@SIMVAX.LABMED.UMN.EDU (David)
Newsgroups: comp.society
Subject: Re: The Aesthetics of Computers
Message-ID: <1655@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM>
Date: 3 Mar 88 08:12:01 GMT
Sender: taylor@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM
Lines: 55
Approved: taylor@hplabs

I recently found the time to read through the articles on the "aesthetics" 
of computers.  I can readily agree with much of the discussion.  For example,
electronic editing has become a necessity in the production of much printed
material.  The computer/terminal used for such a purpose is a tool ... the
result is neither more nor less aesthetic than if it had been edited in
longhand.

One place where I believe the computer loses aesthetic quality is as a
substitute for printed books.  Someone made mention of the fact that the 
words of _Moby Dick_ are no different whether they're printed on paper or 
on a CRT.  However, current technology cannot replace the *way* a person reads 
printed, as opposed to electronic, material.

Books are handy things.  They don't require electricity.  They can be taken
anywhere, anytime.  They can be lent at little cost by virtue of the (slowly
dwindling) resources of the Public Library System.

Printed material is non-linear.  I can flip from page 96 of Stewart Brand's
book _The Media Lab_ to page 99 in an instant.  If I read the intervening
pages, I can find out more about Alan Kay's vision of the Dynabook.  Some
of the words will set me off on a new tangent.

CRT oriented material is linear.  While it is true that I can 'flip' from
screen 96 to screen 99 of an on-line version of _The Media Lab_, I cannot
keep more than 24 lines of text on the screen at a time.  Currently I cannot
look at the line drawing of "Dynabooks in use, as drawn by Alan Kay in 1972"
on that screen.  Even the use of subsection headings cannot be reproduced
well.

When you read a book of fiction, you are not trying to get through the material
as quickly as you can.  You are not interested in whether the reference
to colonial Africa on page 292 is based on fact (something which Hypertext
would quite easily be able to confirm or deny).  You are immersing yourself
in another reality.  You are not constrained to sit upright in a
straight-backed chair, having to press a key to scroll the screen so you
can read the next sentence.  The experience of reading for pleasure should
not be (and *cannot* be, given current technology) performed via computer.
It is not aesthetic.

Factual information, on the other hand, is not generally read for pleasure.
I read various and sundry compilations of "electronic" mailing lists and
bulletin boards via my terminal at work.  I am, in fact, composing this
article on that terminal.  I find that it takes less time to read
through a printed copy of such electronic material, but it is more convenient
to simply scroll through the text on a terminal, 24 line page by 24 line page.

One of the reasons it is more convenient is that there is so *much* information
presented, and most of it is of little or no consequence to the reader.
It becomes quite simple to scan the heading of an article and type in the
"skip article" command based on instant judgement of the contents.

The computer becomes a tool.  Whether there is an aesthetic quality in the
operation of that tool is based more on personal attitude than on the (factual)
information being read.

David