[10494] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Re: ASCII and economics.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael S. Hart)
Tue Aug 6 20:17:02 1996
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 1996 16:08:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Michael S. Hart" <hart@prairienet.org>
In-Reply-To: <v01540b00ae1e96a9b7cd@[129.49.108.63]>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU>
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Michael Silverberg wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> I do seem to have stirred up a hornet's nest over ASCII but that's good
> because I happen to think that before we can commit large swathes of
> printed material to electronic form we have to have a medium of display
> that approaches the richness of print. And that, by the way, has nothing to
> do with the argument of curling up with a good book vs. crouching over your
> laptop.
>
> I would like to respond to some points made in reply to my original posting.
>
> > (By the way Prof. HART, do you use a colour monitor?)
> >
> Why? Do you want to know what color I am?
> >
> The point I thought was obvious - ASCII was originally a medium developed
> for Green (or Amber) on black but few people still use monochrome monitors.
> Must we still adhere to a format whose origins are far predate the majority
> of the hardware in use? But that is the overall philosophy that Prof. Hart
> seems to espouse.
Find me a color monitor that doesn't flicker, doesn't allow the drivers
to let in the Etext Viruses, has drivers that allow me to cut and paste
from any document to any other no matter what the format, and I will be
happy to give it a try. Nevertheless, just because _I_ would would not
mean that I would want to impose it on everyone else.
>
> Prof. Hart seems to hanker after the days when REAl computers were
> controlled by a manual full of arcane commands e.g.- "one of the risks of
Like a stick shift, except the difference in performance is much greater.
If you LEARN to use your computer, it can work so much better.
> using GUI's--you rarely, if ever, know if you are seeing what is really
> there." His Gutenberg instructions also warn against the sin of GUI.
> Doesn't he realise that "the real argument here. . .Elitist or Utilitarian.
> . ." is just as much about the difficulties of using a computer as it is
> about buying one. The GUI was an attempt to make computer use less the
> province of a *technocratic* elite.
Yes, the Graphical User Interface was created to keep computers from
being proprietary to those who could read/write/type commands, of an
arcane set of words such as dir, copy, delete, erase, type, etc.
I don't mind at all, until the world decides that the reduced worked
out performance we made for those who CAN'T OR WON'T LEARN must have
to be forced upon those are WILL LEARN.
These people want to be able to buy a computer, complete with all of
the word processors, spreadsheets, databases, graphing programs, and
be able to use them without being able to type, add, relate, graph--
or any of the rest. . .there is something not quite right about this
point of view, kind of like making a car so simple to drive that any
person can get in and get thousands of pounds of steel moving at 100
miles per hour, right through places where millions of people live--
at least it doesn't KILL those people, or yourself, when you crash--
your computer, tho it might kill your data.
I realize that the real money is in making a society that depends on
you and can't live without you or your product. . .so this Graphical
User Interface thing is really a way to harness more people into the
payment of your corporate income, and they have no alternative.
Yes, I admire the fact that the Model T Ford came with 34 pages, one
screwdriver and two wrenches, which which any person who should read
those 34 pages, understand those tools, and was willing to do work--
could totally disassemble and reassemble the car, right down to ring
jobs and replacing the brakes and transmission.
Something is lost in the modern cars in which even someone with tool
sets and the ambition, can't even replace the headlights, something,
I might add, I could do on nearly ANY car, up until 10 years ago.
The same kind of thing is true of the new computers.
I don't mind making SOME of them comparable to cars with Idiot Lites
as they are called, and SOME with automatic transmissions. . .I mind
when it is ALL, or you have to pay extra for "standard" features, as
in "standard" transmission. . .by the way. . .the statistics for the
cars are measured with "standard" shift, not automatic, since higher
mileage can be had with the "standard" "option" even though it costs
more now to be "standard" than "automatic."
It will probably be that way with computers, too, if you have it the
way you want.
>
> >
> >If you try the original file, and read it in a program that reads
> >Plain Vanilla ASCII, the pages look just fine. Try wide margins,
> >and use the cr/lfs that are in the file.
> >
>
> As Dan Lester pointed out - it depends on what you mean by readable. Pages
> and pages of monospaced courier in an 8 x 10in format with no relief is NOT
> readable - its just legible which is something else. Just look at a real
> printed book and you will see what long evolution has shown to be readable
> - short lines, lots of white space, proportional typefaces etc. The
> typesetter's art did not evolve as a dilettante activity and we should not
> even think about just discarding it. (growing hot under the collar here ;-)
You should read what you have written, at least while you are writing it,
before you send to a wide audience. My etexts have more whitespaces than
most, with a complete blank line between paragraphs, rather than a measly
few spaces called indents, and the computer language called ASCII enables
this with fewer wasted bytes, because they realized its value.
Next time you want whitespaces, try a blank line to separate information,
not a bunch of spaces. Much more efficient, much easier to read.
Actually, having grown up in and around the printing trade, I have my own
feelings and information about how and why the trade grew up as it did, a
fact anyone who knew anything about printing would recognize. I wouldn't
bother with replying to someone who admits this is an emotional subject--
I prefer to stick to the rational. I will merely point out that fonts in
current circulation are so numerous that you might be able to print books
in their entirety without ever using the same font for more than a single
sentence. As quoted from above. . .this is "art" not science.
This is Form. . .not Content.
I can't believe you really want everyone to have to read in proportional,
or that if you DO believe it, that you actually SAID it.
It should be an OPTION. . .not a STANDARD.
>
> Thomas Dowling wrote:
> >Even at that, though, the character set is not the place to provide a rich
> >formatting environment. Bold and Italics are not going to meet the needs
> >of those documents which really *do* depend heavily on their formatting,
> >and I don't want to have to work with a character set that includes a
> >character for "landscape orientation, one inch margins, 2 columns with a
> >half-inch gutter, set body text 10/12pt Palatino (black), set headers 18pt
> >Avant Garde (red)."
>
> I would mildly disagree. While elaborate formatting does need something
> like pdf or sgml, I do think that some basic style characteristics added to
> the character set would go a long way to make documents more readable and
> at the same time preserve cross platform utility. And I stand by, with
> emphasis, what I said about the need to standardize an extended character
> set so that accents, em and en dashes, typograhical quotes etc can be
> included. That is a basic requirement for being able to express what is
> currently basic English. Even Prof. Hart used -- after I said it makes me
> cringe. How insensitive of him!
"cross platform utility?"
This is a total contradiction!
_I_ should change my writing style for YOU? For anyone?
Haruumphh!
>
> Finally a point about the economic issues of embracing new technologies. We
> are still in an era in which computer use is increasing. That means that
> each year, many, many people buy a computer for the first time.
> Simultaneously, many others have to replace one - not out of upgrade frenzy
> but just because their old one is worn out. Now, because of the trends we
Worn out?
How do you wear out a computer?
Maybe by the same standards you wear out your clothes, car, toaster, etc.
Consumerism plus planned obsolescence plus conspicuous consumption.
> all know, those new computers will cost the same or less than the old
> monochrome text interface computers of yesteryear but will have GUI's, 24
> bit colour, 16 bit stereo sound, CD-ROM, 16 or more megabytes of RAM and a
> gigabyte or so of drive space. Should we be telling the proud new owners
> that all that good stuff is just for playing games? That all serious
> material will be plain ASCII text in black and white and don't bother to
> download Acrobat reader (even though its free) because it's elitist?
>
Actually, most of this material IS used for games. . .look at where the
new millions per second chips are going. . .not into the 80786 or 68070
chips. . .they are going into Sony Playstations, Sega, Nintendo, etc.
Look at the usage stats for the items mentioned above. . .how many
people study music on their computers rather than game effects?
> I don't think so. I appreciate the sentiments and concerns that started
> this thread in the first place (Karen, are you still here?) but in the end,
> social problems need social solutions, and attempting to put the brakes on
> technology a)won't work and b)doesn't address the underlying issues.
> Perhaps we should all stop bitching about pdf and put that energy into
> asking our legislators and ourselves why the richest society in history
> can't afford to provide our citizens with decent education in schools
> equipped with all the technology that we are so good at producing?
>
Well. . .you said it!
Why aren't our schools full of electronic public domain books?
Michael S. Hart
The Original Cybrarian
And Utilitarian Idealist
>
>
> Michael
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> Michael Silverberg, D.Phil michaels@salieri.informatics.sunysb.edu
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: [516] 444 - 2347 [FAX: -3475]
> :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology :::::::::::::::::::::
> Department of Medicine; Health Sciences Center :::::::::::::::::::::
> SUNY at Stony Brook; Stony Brook, NY 11794-8161 :::::::::::::::::::::
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
