8 ms·

> Why compare text on paper to text on a screen? Compare text on a paper to rich interactive content on screen. How would a "rich interactive" version of, say,

• ktta 9y ago
  Well, for starters you could have little 'Did you know?' pieces embedded in the text. Historical speeches need a ton of context to be assimilated properly. Immediate reference akin to a quick hyperlink based aside can give context without taking away from the continuity of the speech.
  • musage 9y ago
    > without taking away from the continuity of the speech Of course it takes away from the continuity. Whether that's good or bad is another question, but not that. If words are to mean anything, that is. And you can learn about the context before you read the speech. Which makes perfect sense, because the context came before the speech, it was created within it. To first read the speech and then maybe read up on some context here and there is nowhere near the same thing. Imagine learning a language, and then listening to a musical in that language. Now listen in a musical in a language you don't know with a dictionary. Now I'm not a fan of musicals, but the difference is obvious. You can't make everything infinitely convenient and just in time without losing anything. > assimilated properly That's an oxymoron to me. Assimilation isn't proper, and it's not learning.
    • marcosdumay 9y ago
      What's the goal of putting a speech in an history book if not to help people learn about the context? Destroying the speech is not a problem here. And students can always read it first, read it following references, read it again.