A Slow Move to the New Order
We are led to believe that we are using new ways of writing, reading, and of finding and managing information. Generally speaking, we are all adjusting to key differences between printed text and hypertext. For example:
- A printed text is discrete, complete and permanent whereas hypertext is ‘a moment in time and space’ and subject to modification and disappearance.
- A printed text arranges content in a systematic manner for linear reading whereas hypertext does not necessarily arrange content in a systematic manner and may offer readers departure points before content is fully read.
- A printed text is stored in an hierarchical archival system whereas hypertext remains in the ‘miscellaneous’ of the web and cannot be filed (only ‘flagged’).
Back in 1945, Bush visualised an information network where one text could connect to other texts through ‘associative indexing’. By 1963, Englebart was visualising that computers should be able to take over basic human processes of information linkage and retrieval. Both visions were realised when the world wide web came into existence and when browser software was developed to enable searching, flagging and archiving of hypertext. However, it wasn’t long before the quantity of information being transmitted on the web was so vast that browser bookmarks couldn’t efficiently manage people’s hypertext interests and a new means of searching, archiving and retrieving hypertext was needed.
Tagging became the new system, and this was demonstrated in Wesch’s (2007) video. Tagging means attaching a semantic phrase to a section of hypertext (Gartner). The technology behind tagging enables human language to ‘talk to’ hypertext markup language. This tagging system is much like the associative indexing conceived by Bush, only we refer to it as ‘folksonomy’ (Gartner). One website can have multiple items of metadata attached to it (i.e. if several people ‘flag’ the same URL or same span of content), and the multiplicity of tags from all those people can be displayed on the website as a ‘tag cloud’ (e.g. http://www.matterofstats.com/tag-cloud/). Tags also link hypertext across different websites, which enables more efficient information searches and retrievals.
People like Bolter (2001) caution us against thinking that reading, writing and managing hypertext is totally different to reading, writing and managing printed texts. He believes we are merely remediating print when using hypertext. He’s right in many ways. There are affordances and habits of print that we replicate with hypertext, such as scrolling, pagination (often seamless but pagination nevertheless) and menus (in place of table of contents). Our minds wouldn’t cope with a totally random information stream nor with hypertext displayed on a webpage in a chaotic mess and without any visual cues for us to make sense of it. Menus are a high-order categorisation of content on a website (an index in other words). In addition, behind every website is a database driving interactions between users, the server and hypertext. A database has an index, often likened to a tree structure. We don’t see this structure when we are reading or writing hypertext, or when we tag and retrieve tags. However, it is very much part and parcel of what makes hypertext work. Therefore, human interaction with hypertext is really only possible or effective when it involves indexes (hierarchies; categories) of some sort.
Personally, I am still inclined towards indexing documents on my hard drive or USB because I don’t have faith that documents tagged and saved to the cloud will ‘be there’ when needed. Also, I can make sense of a personally-created index (I named the folders). Tagging documents seems to me to be like placing my bits of tagging semantics into an invisible directory – one that has no boundaries and that I don’t have ownership over.
When it comes to archiving URLs, I use evernote.com and tags. A list of my tags and a list of the URLs attached to those tags are displayed on my Evernote site every time I log in. However, this system of archiving URLs in the cloud with tags is recent for me (in the past 12 to 18 months). From 2010 to 2013, I kept my favourite Ed Tech websites as a content page on my blog, all allocated to categories represented by text headings on the page (http://jiorns.wordpress.com/links). Sometimes an index is what we are comfortable with. Sometimes we maintain our own filing and retrieval systems in addition to those the software programmers create and market, and we are all on our individual journeys to understand and use hypertext.
I wonder if other people are experiencing a transition from print to hypertext modes of managing information, and how people get to the point where they ‘go loose’ with the new order and trust that what they need will always be there?
References
http://www.gartner.com/it-glossary/folksonomy
Bolter, J.D. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print (2nd Ed.). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bush, V. (1945). As We May Think. Atlantic Monthly.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-may-think/303881/
Englebart, Douglas. (1963). A conceptual framework for the augmentation of man’s intellect. In Hawerton, P.W. and Weeks, D.C. (Eds), Vistas in information handling, Volume I: The augmentation of man’s intellect by machine. Washington, DC: Spartan Books.
Wesch, M. (2007). Information R/evolution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4CV05HyAbM
I enjoyed your differences in characteristics between print and hypertext. I think a lot of the challenges people have with hypertext is that it is unstable when you compare it to print texts. It can also be difficult to understand the organization if you are expecting a linear and systematic method. I think that you are right, we have to impose some sort of category system because our minds need some sort of order. I find the process of “tagging” to be interesting. I like how the categories are fluid and can be modified by different users.
Catherine
Hi Catherine,
Nice comment. Just wondering if you can give an example of where ‘categories are fluid and can be modified by different users’. I’m trying to think of how that happens. Cheers.
Great connections between print and hypertext! I am with you and Bolter on the idea that ?electronic hypertext is not the end of print; it is instead the remediation of print? (Bolter, 2001). If we look back throughout history, there has not been one form of writing technology that has sufficiently met our needs. The codex eventually replaced the roll, parchment replaced papyrus, paper replaced parchment, the typewriter replaced handwriting, and the computer replaced the typewriter (Bolter, 2001). This does not mean that people altogether stopped using the ?older? form of technology just because a new form came out. My grandma?s friend makes her own paper for writing letters and notes because she prefers the look and texture over regular paper, and the majority of us still use a pen and paper every so often, despite the fact that we have smart phones and other technological devices literally at our fingertips. I cannot see myself giving up pen and paper completely, although, once this course is finished it would be an interesting experiment, to see how long one could go without actually needing to partake in the physical act of writing by hand.
To be honest, I had not really thought about whether or not my hypertext mode of managing information will be there for me when I need it. About five years ago I started a Delicious account, and tagged some websites, but never really got into using it. Bush (1945) states that we are being overloaded with so much information, that the important stuff is being lost. While that may be true, I think one of the main reasons I have not stuck with Delicious is because there is so much information available. If I really need to find something, a lesson on electricity for example, all I need to do is ?Google? it and any number of lessons will turn up. Sure it might take some time to sort the good lessons from the bad, but my search might lead me to something better than I had originally. Now if I were to lose my Pinterest pins, well then I would be devastated!
References
Bolter, J.D. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bush, V. (1945). As we may think. Atlantic Monthly, 176(1). 101-108. Retrieved from
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-may-think/303881/
Hi Jann,
Your analysis of the connections between hypertext and print is interesting. You mention Bolter’s understanding of hypertext as a remediation of print forms. It’s interesting that he also mentions “the process of remediation must acknowledge both their connection with and their difference from print”.
In your post you asked if other people are experiencing a transition from print to hypertext modes of managing information, and how people get to the point where they ‘go loose’ with the new order and trust that what they need will always be there? These questions made me think of how I still treat or expect digital media to function as print media. For example, pre-internet, when I worked on a paper, I had a stack of books, and journal article with post-its or bookmarks sticking out of them. When reading a pdf for example, I still really like the ability to highlight points or tag areas of interest. I started using ReadCube to help me organize this information digitally and across multiple devices. Flagging is still hard to do on a web page. But I just started using Delicious during this course. I also use StumbleUpon for interesting websites, and the Read List in Safari, as well as regular bookmarks. So it gets really confusing, when working on a specific topic or project. Whereas in the past, I had a pile of books in front of me. Of course it is much easier to access information now. And I don’t need to go to the library or find space to store the books.
Bolter, J. D. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print. Routledge
Thanks for your thoughts and comments. We were lucky to be able to ‘see’ our collections when reading and studying from printed books and photocopies of print material. It made you feel good to see all those post-it notes sticking out of the pages – you knew you’d done your work.
I did use Delicious in a MET course maybe 2 years ago or earlier. An account or site was created for everyone doing that course. Later, when I couldn’t remember the username or password, I lost access to everything I had stored there. I then decided to create my own WordPress blog, moving what I had done on the UBC blogs to my own site – for the reason that I didn’t want to discover I couldn’t access it sometime down the track.
So, I’m not a fan of Delicious. Thanks for suggesting ReadCube. I will give that a go, as I need a way to markup PDFs.
I agree on the fact that text presentation is changing due to cultural changes. Today text need to be short “Twitter” with links and abbreviations. It needs to have the share capability. It also needs to allow for feedback and replies. All this is due to the new medians such as; computers, smartphones, tablets…etc.
H Jann;
I really like your 3 key differences between printed text and hypertext. Hypertext seems to come across as being flighty and unstable.compared to the stable, reliable format of the printed book. Maybe this is due to our long history with the book.
It makes me wonder if the creators of hypertext had any library science training or approached cataloging librarians in the early stages for input. Could they have avoided some of these inconsistencies with knowledge from the ‘inside’ of Dewey and the Library of Congress rather than from the outside as the user? Could some of the organizational structures have reduced such elements as what you describe as ‘disappearance’ and ‘miscellaneous’? It’s as if they attempted to reinvent ‘the wheel’ by wanting to be totally different from what was already in place. I’ll have to keep reading to find an answer.
Thanks for the insight on ‘archival filing’. This will be put to good use.