Overall, I agree with Dan's point on how much opportunity for a rich electronic communications environment has been overlooked.
On the other hand, who among us can be sure that there's no "alternative rich communications universe" embedded in the shorthand languages of "IM" and "rap?" Where's the Rosetta Stone that can cross-translate among "Standard English," "common idiomatic English," "generally-accepted slang-lish," "blended-with-various-ethnic-based-languages English," etc? Some people can communicate better than others. Woody Guthrie summarized the main themes and meanings of the film of Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath" in one night, in language that almost anyone can read and grasp. It probably would survive the cryptic notation of Instant Messaging, with little loss of meaning. (http://www.geocities.com/nashville/3448/tomjoad.html) It might be possible for someone to get a grant funded that examines whether or not the common "IM-ing" abbreviation-based language works better to communicate the records of contemporary affairs and history across sociocultural groups, than "Standard American English." The losses of literacy that Dan points out are more about the ineffectiveness of public education to bring students to a useful level of literacy, than about the media and syntax that's used to transmit recorded culture and history. ________________ Regards, Peter Gold KnowHow ProServices Daniel Emory wrote: > --- mcarr at allette.com.au wrote: >> As far as a device that you can comfortably and >> safely use in the tub is >> concerned, I don't think that paper will be the >> delivery method of the >> future. > ======================== > It?s estimated that 40% of the US adult population is > non-literate, which means they don?t read books or > newspapers. This has been accompanied by a rapid > decline in the ability of college students to write a > half-way decent paragraph in English. The California > State College system, the largest in the nation, takes > almost any applicant who got through high-school > degree with half-way decent grades. But about 40% of > its first year students are not capable of doing > college-level work, and thus their first year is > dominated by remedial classes in English, Math and > other subjects they should have mastered in high > school. > > These declines all coincide with the growth of the > internet, and the shift from obtaining knowledge from > paper books to learning from feeble snippets of > on-line text. The blogosphere, dominated by those who > are at least competent in the English language, > consists mainly of opinions unsupported by any factual > basis. > > When you read tomes from the 1990?s extolling the > promise of hypertext to change the way people think > and use information, (I recommend the > ?Hypertext/Hypermedia Handbook by Berk and Devlin), > you begin to realize that it?s promise was still-born. > The hypertext pioneers envisioned a rich panoply of > link types that would create hypertexts which were > true ?searchable mazes? Frame Technology, beginning in > FrameMaker 4, added a rich variety of hypertext link > types which would have realized that original vision. > When Adobe took over FrameMaker, it could have carried > out that vision by implementing all of the FrameMaker > link types in PDF. It failed to do so. And so, the > HTML standard, with only the most primitive hypertext > link type, became the standard. There was some hope > that the XML standard would have rich linking > capabilities. It added a few additional link types, > but nowhere near enough to realize the original > promise of hypertext. > > The result is that most online help documents are > shovelware. I wrote an article about that, ?Thoughts > About On-Line Help?, about 6 years ago. It?s still > available at: > > http://www.microtype.com/resources/articles/Oldocs_DE.pdf > > Although I would probably add some additional concepts > and ideas if I wrote that article today, I still stand > by most of what?s stated there. In particular, I stand > by my statements in that article about the many > advantages of paper books (or PDFs which faithfully > replicate the format and layout of well-designed paper > books). > > Getting back to what I state in the first two > paragraphs above, I maintain that the ability to > acquire in-depth knowledge of a subject is a > discipline which is difficult to master. And I have no > doubt that well-written, well-organized paper books, > particularly on difficult subjects, will continue to > be the best way to acquire real, in-depth knowledge of > a subject, and subsequently serve its owner as a > valuable reference source. If the internet (and other > vehicles of on-line content) continues to serve mainly > to encourage an undiscipplined pseudo-approach to real > learning, it will remain a major cause of rising > non-literacy. >
