As for projection, I think there is a limited extent to which
the author can articulate his intentions. . .precise wording
and such are crucial, but there's only so much one can do.
Going back to previous discussions, a theoretical problem here
is that the easiest way to project clearly is most likely in a
linear argument. . .the author and reader are both used to this
and more likely to pick up on the context clues.
> -Conceivably there could be a web site that consisted of linked
> images containing no text that fit together to tell a story.
> Would this still be hypertext or hyper-images? What impact, if
> any, does this have on our understanding of hypertext, especially
> in relation to the concept of re-defining the book?
>
> -In the section on Inline Graphics the author says that
> hypertext/web authors must always be "courteous to the audience
> trapped behind a slow link...." Do you agree with this
> statement? Should an author need to alter his or her projection
> to satisfy ALL members of an audience? Is it rude to design a
> site with a fast-link audience in mind? Should an artist be
> forced to name an unnamed piece just to provide a text
> alternative for the text-only browser?
I think this does depend a lot on your intended audience and
what your page is for (service, commericial, personal,
"art,"). I'm all for moderation in these aspects. . .I prefer
the NYT or WSJ over papers with color, though, so maybe I'm
just stuffy. Still, Javascript, Shockwave, etc are neat, but a
true pain in the butt, especially if your reader is paying by
the minute with AOL or a similarly shoddy service.
-- Kevin Troy http://faraday.clas.virginia.edu/~ktt4d