John wrote
> I do have one theoretical problem with hypertext. It seems to be founded
> in the assumption that knowledge can be organized in the form of a
> hierarchy, and that the best way to study a hierarchy is to go down one
> long path through it, without ever seeing the whole hierarchy. It also
> seems to be founded in the assumption that hierarchy is the most general
> form of knowledge organization.
> The best way to face up to a hybrid structure in a
> particular area of study is to develop it, put it up on a large wall,
> study it as a whole by visual scanning and cross-path observation. Then,
> and only then, may it be appropriate to go to hypertext while the whole
> structure is in full view. Even then, the hypertext should figure out
> some way to deal with the cyclic components of the HYBRID STRUCTURE
> that is tuned up to human assimilation.
One thing that I've noticed about hypertext is that knowing how to use it
- say, a hypertext author's knowing how to use it - is not the same thing
as knowing how to write it in ways that make understanding easier or in
knowing how to make use of the WWW's particular limits and options.
I have some information on-line at
<http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/jfullerton/writing.htm>
that concerns "Making information more understandable". The simple iconic
presentation at the top of the page - as simple as it may seem to be - was
not simple to recognize or "figure out" for me. Also, it doesn't take into
account the receipt of knowledge in a finished form early in the process.
I haven't worked on those notes for a few months now, and I would be
interested in comments.
It does seem to me that the WWW, even with its limitations, makes the
Internet usable to many and lets computers, programs and network
configurations keep record of how to transfer data.
-- Have a nice day John Paul Fullerton jpf6745@acs.tamu.edu