The class discussion with Mr. Falco brought some
questions to mind.
Do we often insist on good graphics with hypertext
work on the web because we look up at the screen (or down
slightly at the laptop which to me is the position one
assumes when reading a magazine on the stairmaster) as if
the screen were a poster or a picture or, as Nate said, a
window?
Most books don't offer more than two colors. It could
be, and probably IS, that the hypertext format allows color and
picture cheaply. William Blake and Lewis Carroll gave a lot of
good graphics, but most writers really don't pursue mixing words
with good backgrounds and side panels these days.
We are used to looking down at a book , "burying our
heads in books", but when we look up we expect more. I think
that when a person looks up or straightforward the person expects
motion and color or something for all the trouble of looking up.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the desire for a little artwork,
at least, with this windows stuff has more to do with looking
into a frame than the actual act of looking up. Maybe its all
together.
Also, I think the ability to move your windows around
is a real saving grace for the computer age. The act of
handling objects, even virtual objects, is a comforting one.
The window becomes YOUR window when you can move around the
panels like you move furniture in your room. I wonder if the
object metaphor could be changed so that this feeling of
comfort could be heightened. For instance, dresses could be the
object metaphor and people could rearrange their "informational
closets". The information could be inside a frame in the shape
of a dress. This may be taking it too far, but then there are
drawer metaphors that would suffice. My favorite is the Barbie
Dreamhouse virtual-object metaphor.
Finally, amd more importantly, the POSTMODERN piece
about utopian communication theories is strange and
informative, at least for me. The German poet (Enzenburger?)
has these hopes for the radio. The radio will perhaps destroy
clas boundaries and open up finer education for all
radio-listeners. Then came the capitalist Sarnoff-men who
escaped anti-trust with Enzenburger talk and now we have
Casey Case-um.
HMMMM. The writer is hard on modern radio. He thinks
that talk-shows are not democratic but demographically slanted
to satisfy loyal listeners. This is definately true in most every
instance, but not always, I don't think. Yes, it's probably
true with Limbaugh but not with, say, Wide-Eyed Hotline in
the middle of the night.
The writer also gives no example or detailed example of
how to escape the commercialization of new forms of
communication.
The White House Internet vision and the Gingrich vision
do not take into account the glitches involved in Internet. Neither
plan considers the technical frustration real teachers would be
subject to if the class could not connect to the Super Classroom
when the Super Teacher from EducationMall was ready to teach the
fidgety and hungry class that could not connect.
No telling what will happen with this stuff. The
writer's desire to have every member of the democracy
be an active producer either during or after work may be the most
dreamy plan of all.
I hope I am understanding correctly. How can
utopian ideas for the web be realized in a capitalist context?
It seems that the masses would have to care and care about
something much less nebulous than this man's gripe.
If any one gets the inkling to read the piece, please
let me know if I am missing something.
See you Friday.