6 on 36: Q&A With Danny Bloom On "Screening" Text Online
They talking about this in Beijing, too.
Screening is defined as: To read text on a computer screen, cellphone screen, Kindle screen or PDA screen or BlackBerry screen; replaces the term “reading” which now only refers to reading print text on paper.
posted by dan at 8:34 PM
6 Comments:
I don't think we should ever do away with the idea of reading as in holding a book with paper pages that turn. No more than the invention of the automobile did away with the idea of a horse. It is true I do far more "screening" than reading these days, and I sometimes wonder if "writing" is also on the way out. Is this clickety clack that we do on the keyboard the same thing _ especially in our brain processes in formulating ideas _ as what happens when we really write as in holding a pen or pencil in our fingers and scrawling letters on paper. This worries me quite a bit _ even more than the screening debate. Or did I miss that part of the debate? Also I would like to point out that "screening" sounds a lot like "screaming." Not sure if that's good.
Hello Yuri in Tokyo!
GOod post and yes, maybe we need a new word for "writing online" too. good idea. because it's just not the same as writing on paper.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
yes, screening is a bit awkward, i agree,,,,,,close to screaming, and with many movie meanings....BUT, let's see what people say in next 10 years....this is a long term project
Danny, That's right.
The info comes in too fast, too easily and sans "friction." IT DON'T STICK!
-- A
danny
I think you have - monumentally - missed the point. We are in the
middle of one of the Four Big Steps (language, writing, printing, the
Web): it's really not possible to say that any one is bigger than the
others, since they are so dependent, but this is certainly the one
which is happening fastest, and you are maundering on about whether
some visual information is presented by depositing pigment on paper or
by forming a luminous image on a screen. (I thought that the Kindle,
which started this discussion off, used an "electronic paper"
technology, in which blackness is semi-permanently deposited on a
screen of some sort, making it borderline in any event.)
The significance of the widespread adoption of printing was that
hugely more people could now read a particular piece of writing -- it
was not about how beautifully cast type would allow the letters to be
formed. The revolution that is happening now is also about
_availability_ of information: effectively universal instant access to
that part of accumulated human knowledge that has not been grabbed by
the wonderful bunch of thugs and criminals known as Olde Media (or
"the content industry").
In many ways, recent changes are a reversion -- for the half-century
or so over which TV and then video technology has developed, it has
always about moving from a reader-driven ("pull") model, in which the
reader peruses the newspaper, to a Old-Media-driven ("push") model, in
which the non-reader sits, and it irradiated with whatever "content"
its "industry" thinks will be most profitable for it.
If we needed two different verbs, it would be for "pull" and "push",
and "read" seems quite appropriate for pull-info -- if "watch" or
"view" isn't bad enough for push-info, why not look for a verb that is
-- perhaps something like "couch" or "potato"?
Brian
Mark replies
to
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Brian
wrote:
> technology, in which blackness is semi-permanently deposited on a
> screen of some sort, making it borderline in any event.)
It's like a B&W LCD, in which "pixels" are switched on (black) or off
(white), but don't need energy to remain in the on or off state; i.e.,
you switch a pixel on and it stays that way until switched back. The
lack of constant screen refreshing is what makes it easier to read and
makes it possible for the battery to last as long as it does, since it
only uses energy when you "flip" a "page."
A top thinker/expert in the field tells me today by email:
"Your 6 Qs didn't really get at why you think there's a big distinction, ....and ......what we lose if we don't differentiate."
-- JT
Post a Comment
<< Home