3 ms·

> I actually don't agree with this. I think _not_ having "essential dynamism" where it's not needed is actually a feature, not a bug. I couldn't agree more. Dy

> I actually don't agree with this. I think _not_ having "essential dynamism" where it's not needed is actually a feature, not a bug. I couldn't agree more. Dynamism is great for web _apps_, but it's the last thing I want in a document

digdugdirk 3y ago
There are some genuine benefits that come along with. I mean, if I could have auto expand inline footnotes/references in a document, I'd be a happy camper.
esafak 3y ago
Do you object to the interactive Vega widget? https://nota-lang.org/reference.html#def-section-1.1 https://nota-lang.org/reference.html#def-section-1.1 Reputable scientific journals now post videos online alongside their articles. Interactivity is even better for understanding. But permanence is an issue I suppose.
- DistractionRect 3y ago
  I'm not saying it's all bad. Digital augmentation can be handy (love the hell out of document search), but honestly their examples aren't compelling. I think accessibility is a major issue, where the text doesn't make as much sense without the interactive bits, and often the text itself isn't substantial enough to be stand alone. But also, it's starting to cross the line between web app and document. I can print out a pdf and I just lose peripheral QoL benefits like document search. However, if I try to print a web app I usually lose a lot of the content/context. Edit: as far as supplemental material goes, I'm all for it. People learn differently, so video, audio, web app, whatever are all great supplemental materials, but a good document should be able to stand by itself.
anon35 3y ago
OK but then what is the thing in the middle, between documents and applications? There are fantastic, beautiful interactive experiences (for lack of a better word) that are obviously not documents (they can't be represented on paper, there is code running) but they're not really applications, either (they are fully offline, self-contained, state that's only evident on the page). But they are, universally: dynamic. Examples: - https://ciechanow.ski/mechanical-watch/ https://ciechanow.ski/mechanical-watch/ - http://worrydream.com/TenBrighterIdeas/ http://worrydream.com/TenBrighterIdeas/ - even : https://neal.fun/space-elevator/ https://neal.fun/space-elevator/ This is what I think the future of textbooks and presentations should be. But I think part of the problem is that not only do we not have tools geared toward creating them, we don't even have a name for these things. If we say "document", they flunk the pdf test. If we say "web application", they are lumped into the same lumbering category as office docs and enterprise software. Maybe Nota is a step in the right direction. But it'd be an even better step if it didn't call itself "21st century documents", if for no other reason than to defend against the valid criticism you levied against it.
- DistractionRect 3y ago
  Ha, I was totally thinking about the watch blog too! I think that one is rather a special case. You could print it out with the first still of each bit and probably get out 90% of the content/context, and modify document to print out a few stills from each interactive part and get the same intellectual content. In it's case, the interactivity is superfluous, it's there to spark joy. It's really an example of a document with outstanding figures/visual aid - the interactivity is just a bonus. Similarly, the space elevator could be a picture book/pdf. The interactive bits there also spark joy. The tenbrighterideas page mostly annoyed me. It's just bastardizing structure to be "interactive", which is to say most of the information is hidden away behind a bunch of clicks and it could have been a document, with one page dedicated to each idea.
  - MrJohz 3y ago
    I strongly disagree with the idea that the interactive elements are only there to "spark joy" - in both of the cases you mentioned, the interactive elements are pretty fundamental. Their purpose is to let you get somewhat hands-on with the concepts the text is discussing - to allow you to take apart the watch yourself, at your own pace, and understand what all the pieces are doing. I'm sure you can convey the same information in text format (like you say, you could just print out the page), but these particular sites would be a lot weaker, because part of their explanatory power is the interactivity. The original quote was that dynamism was "the last thing I want in a document", and I think these interactive diagrams and explainers directly show how useful dynamism can be in conveying information. That's not to say that all dynamism is good - I don't usually want you to use Javascript to just load a new page, my browser can do that just fine - but every medium can be abused. That doesn't mean that medium is bad!
    - DistractionRect 3y ago
      I'm not saying they're only to spark joy, but to me at least, their contribution is mostly in that category. I didn't really find it central to the content in any of the examples. To my point it's "the last thing I want in a document", I stand by it. What I mean is I should be able to print it and really lose nothing central to the content. Yes, digital offers features which may enrich the experience/use/navigation, but at the same time there's questions of accessibility and ease of parsing. If I _have_ to interact with things to get the information//content out, it's effectively a web app, and not a document, and if done wrong it actively interferes with my ability to absorb the information. IMO the brighter ideas page firmly falls under that last point. The watch page is wonderful, and the visuals and interactivity is done masterfully, in such a way it's obtrusive and not _required_ to understand the document. I'd classify the elevator page as a web app, but there's really nothing keeping it from being a document/children's book. And I just really, really, did not like the brighter ideas page. I think the content is good, but the execution got in the way instead of adding to the experience.
hesk 3y ago
The example academic paper has puts the definition of variables into a tooltip when you click on them. That's a nice feature for academic papers.

digdugdirk 3y ago

There are some genuine benefits that come along with. I mean, if I could have auto expand inline footnotes/references in a document, I'd be a happy camper.

esafak 3y ago

Do you object to the interactive Vega widget? https://nota-lang.org/reference.html#def-section-1.1 https://nota-lang.org/reference.html#def-section-1.1 Reputable scientific journals now post videos online alongside their articles. Interactivity is even better for understanding. But permanence is an issue I suppose.

DistractionRect 3y ago
I'm not saying it's all bad. Digital augmentation can be handy (love the hell out of document search), but honestly their examples aren't compelling. I think accessibility is a major issue, where the text doesn't make as much sense without the interactive bits, and often the text itself isn't substantial enough to be stand alone. But also, it's starting to cross the line between web app and document. I can print out a pdf and I just lose peripheral QoL benefits like document search. However, if I try to print a web app I usually lose a lot of the content/context. Edit: as far as supplemental material goes, I'm all for it. People learn differently, so video, audio, web app, whatever are all great supplemental materials, but a good document should be able to stand by itself.

anon35 3y ago

OK but then what is the thing in the middle, between documents and applications? There are fantastic, beautiful interactive experiences (for lack of a better word) that are obviously not documents (they can't be represented on paper, there is code running) but they're not really applications, either (they are fully offline, self-contained, state that's only evident on the page). But they are, universally: dynamic. Examples: - https://ciechanow.ski/mechanical-watch/ https://ciechanow.ski/mechanical-watch/ - http://worrydream.com/TenBrighterIdeas/ http://worrydream.com/TenBrighterIdeas/ - even : https://neal.fun/space-elevator/ https://neal.fun/space-elevator/ This is what I think the future of textbooks and presentations should be. But I think part of the problem is that not only do we not have tools geared toward creating them, we don't even have a name for these things. If we say "document", they flunk the pdf test. If we say "web application", they are lumped into the same lumbering category as office docs and enterprise software. Maybe Nota is a step in the right direction. But it'd be an even better step if it didn't call itself "21st century documents", if for no other reason than to defend against the valid criticism you levied against it.

DistractionRect 3y ago
Ha, I was totally thinking about the watch blog too! I think that one is rather a special case. You could print it out with the first still of each bit and probably get out 90% of the content/context, and modify document to print out a few stills from each interactive part and get the same intellectual content. In it's case, the interactivity is superfluous, it's there to spark joy. It's really an example of a document with outstanding figures/visual aid - the interactivity is just a bonus. Similarly, the space elevator could be a picture book/pdf. The interactive bits there also spark joy. The tenbrighterideas page mostly annoyed me. It's just bastardizing structure to be "interactive", which is to say most of the information is hidden away behind a bunch of clicks and it could have been a document, with one page dedicated to each idea.
- MrJohz 3y ago
  I strongly disagree with the idea that the interactive elements are only there to "spark joy" - in both of the cases you mentioned, the interactive elements are pretty fundamental. Their purpose is to let you get somewhat hands-on with the concepts the text is discussing - to allow you to take apart the watch yourself, at your own pace, and understand what all the pieces are doing. I'm sure you can convey the same information in text format (like you say, you could just print out the page), but these particular sites would be a lot weaker, because part of their explanatory power is the interactivity. The original quote was that dynamism was "the last thing I want in a document", and I think these interactive diagrams and explainers directly show how useful dynamism can be in conveying information. That's not to say that all dynamism is good - I don't usually want you to use Javascript to just load a new page, my browser can do that just fine - but every medium can be abused. That doesn't mean that medium is bad!
  - DistractionRect 3y ago
    I'm not saying they're only to spark joy, but to me at least, their contribution is mostly in that category. I didn't really find it central to the content in any of the examples. To my point it's "the last thing I want in a document", I stand by it. What I mean is I should be able to print it and really lose nothing central to the content. Yes, digital offers features which may enrich the experience/use/navigation, but at the same time there's questions of accessibility and ease of parsing. If I _have_ to interact with things to get the information//content out, it's effectively a web app, and not a document, and if done wrong it actively interferes with my ability to absorb the information. IMO the brighter ideas page firmly falls under that last point. The watch page is wonderful, and the visuals and interactivity is done masterfully, in such a way it's obtrusive and not _required_ to understand the document. I'd classify the elevator page as a web app, but there's really nothing keeping it from being a document/children's book. And I just really, really, did not like the brighter ideas page. I think the content is good, but the execution got in the way instead of adding to the experience.

hesk 3y ago

The example academic paper has puts the definition of variables into a tooltip when you click on them. That's a nice feature for academic papers.