4 ms·
The persistence of paper indicates nothing more than a failure of existing software, not of concept. The biggest shortfall is that computers do not allow arbit
by roc 16y ago
The persistence of paper indicates nothing more than a failure of existing software, not of concept.
The biggest shortfall is that computers do not allow arbitrary input at arbitrary times. You have to prime them to accept a certain type of input, which takes a wasteful amount of time.
Further, you are then typically locked into a certain rigid type of input, which may not be appropriate. E.g. The default for text entry boxes is to only allows text, not annotation, so work that involves annotation is poorly suited to most text entry software. Similarly, post-it applications tend not to allow arbitrary diagrams, even though that may be the most effective way to record a note.
There's no reason it must be that way, it just tends to be, because thoughtless software development is cheaper and easier.
Paperless certainly isn't feasible for everyone today. But that doesn't make it unattainable. And let's not pretend for a moment that just because pure paperless isn't feasible for many, that a dramatic reduction isn't possible. Despite the remaining valid uses, the overwhelming majority of paper produced is pure waste.
As for the 'acting' commentary you cite, that isn't omitted in a paperless future. It's absolutely preserved in the context of the visual/textual exchange of sending someone an email with the report as attachment/link/etc.
If anything, it's amplified by the asynchronous nature of drafting the message; you're forced to think about its presentation and have the time to give it the right delivery; versus a time/space-constrained physical exchange.
- mechanical_fish 16y agoI agree that existing software has failings, and I certainly agree that a push toward not archiving paper is worthwhile and that the technology is there. (I installed my Fujitsu ScanSnap yesterday. It's a dream. I'm expecting it to work great with Dropbox, Evernote, and iPad.) But we can only blame software so much. There's a failure of existing hardware as well. Much of that is a failure to be sufficiently cheap. I can cover a desk in six layers of 300dpi paper for a few dollars. To cover a desk in 300dpi display is still prohibitively expensive, for now. But there's also a failure of hardware to leverage human nature. We have stacks of highly-designed wetware designed for working with tangible objects that fit in our hands and can be moved through space. A collection of Post-it notes plugs right into our psychology. But most electronics lives in its world, not ours. We peer into the world of our computers through little glass windows. At least the new multitouch interfaces let us put our fingers on the windows, but there's a lot of room for improvement. Literally entire dimensions' worth of room for improvement.
- roc 16y agoPaper is cheap today, but becomes a more expensive choice. You have to figure in the implied costs of transporting, storing, archiving, searching, referencing, etc. That's why, much as legitimate uses of paper have persisted, they have done so only within areas of local creation: paper tickers don't leave the air traffic bullpen, annotated papers don't leave the desks of their authors, post-it notes rarely leave the desk, etc. In short: software is failing creators, and that's where paper persists. After the process of creation --during recording, transportation, storage, reference, indexing, etc-- paper is already dead.
- sprout 16y agoSoftware is meeting creators cost-benefit considerations. If and when full-desk displays with dozens of GPUs become as cheap as a normal workstation, then the software will emerge to transfer things seamlessly between different workstations. Until then, paper is much cheaper. Even when free, software is not cheap, especially in time needed to assimilate it into your workflow.