5 ms·
I think his point is that it's a communication system that facilitates communication amongst everyone. And everyone can communicate in words, typed out[0]. And
by morsch 13y ago
I think his point is that it's a communication system that facilitates communication amongst everyone. And everyone can communicate in words, typed out[0]. And not everyone can produce or effectively communicate using beautiful video, high quality graphics and, I guess, responsive design. [1]
It's interesting to wonder what the next-common "wide area" communication mode is -- photos are widely shared, but is there a lot truly communicated with them? I guess it depends on whether you think those picture's typically say more than a thousand words. Videos, too. They serve as a topic of discussion amongst peers, not as a mode of discussion themselves.
In fact the deeper point remains even if I conceded your argument: there are always those who excel in the creation of art and in presentation, regardless of medium. What makes the Internet different is that it facilitates peer to peer communication, that quality powered for the most part by the universality of written text. I guess that's why it if often compared to the invention of the printing press, another time such a fundamental shift in human communication took place (facilitating many to everyone, but not everyone to everyone).
Those who excel in arts and communication -- and, to an unusual degree! engineering -- are still the magic wizards/grey eminences of the medium, prominently shaping something that wouldn't exist without them.
[0] Words, typed out: A manner that's arguably truly more efficient and useful than what it's originated to represent, speech. Imagine consuming all the text content you read everyday on the web (such as this!) delivered by speech.
[1] Leaving out the fact, that of course, not everyone has the ability to participate in words, typed out. While I do think it has served to interconnect everyone in terms of exchanging thoughts, it also serves as a means of separation between those who can and those who can't: lacking access or straight up capability to use this mode.
Edit: added some more thoughts.
- adventured 13y agoEveryone can communicate in words? That isn't true, unfortunately. I don't see why you even said that, only to negate it at the bottom. More people can digest a photo than can read a specific language, by a radical margin.
- epo 13y agoAll of your contributions seem to denote someone who doesn't really have anything worthwhile to convey in writing. Try to communicate "Hire me, I'm experienced." in a photo. Share that on Facebook.
- adventured 13y agoIf you're going to attempt to insult me personally (instead of focusing on the content of my posts), in words, I'd prefer that you put in more effort if we're talking about things that are worthwhile.
- gyepi 13y ago> All of your contributions seem to denote someone who doesn't really have anything worthwhile to convey in writing. Please refrain from this sort of ad hominem response, it adds nothing to conversation.
- morsch 13y agoI agree that an individual pictures or movie has the potential to be understood by a larger number of people. Even by a "radical" margin. :) However, that's not a unique feature of the Internet, it's similar in all means of communication. In media older than the Internet, pictures and movies have had an impact across linguistic communities. But the vast majority of pictures and movies aren't the My Lai photographs or the moon landing. Most pictures and movies just don't communicate a whole lot of thought, it's amazing when they do, which is why photography and movie-making and music are such arts! That's because the vast majority of everyone doesn't have the capability, opportunity or sheer (in fail videos: bad) luck to take a picture or a movie like that. In other words, visual arts might be a more universally accessible when it comes to receiving side, but they are much less universally accessible when it comes to the producing side.
- derleth 13y ago> And everyone can communicate in words, typed out Obviously false, or else answer me in Cherokee, Tamil, Hindi, and Latin. Images can be understood beyond the bounds of a single language.
- Millennium 13y agoLikewise false, or else find me an image that very clearly indicates the same content as, say, the Gettysburg Address. Images can be understood beyond the bounds of a single language, but only for the very simplest of concepts. Go more complex than a sentence or so, and interpretations begins to muddy the waters in ways that language simply does not.
- sageikosa 13y agoImages can be perceived and a narrative constructed regardless of language, but this may not be the same narrative the creator intended, in which case, nothing was communicated.
- leephillips 13y agoThose languages use words.
- derleth 13y agoHow many of those languages contain words you understand?
- adregan 13y agoWritten language is a system of images — sometimes with phonetic significance, sometimes ideogramatic.
- leephillips 13y ago"not everyone can produce [...] responsive design" Notice that the page is automatically responsive, and is perfectly usable on a phone, tablet, or anything else. If your page has no CSS styles it will be perfectly responsive. If it's not, you've messed up that nice feature of the web with your stylesheet. Now you probably think you need to learn about media queries to make it work again.
- zevyoura 13y agoI would actually argue that raw text is not 'responsive,' because column widths that are as wide as a large monitor are incredibly difficult to read.
- leephillips 13y agoThat's a good point, but you are sort of redefining responsive. The unstyled HTML (not raw text) will still flow to any size window. The problem you mention can be fixed with a "max width", as in the original article.
- zevyoura 13y agoI'm not sure that there's a universally agreed upon definition, but I think my comment certainly is relevant if we go by the one on Wikipedia: "Responsive web design (RWD) is a web design approach aimed at crafting sites to provide an optimal viewing experience—easy reading and navigation with a minimum of resizing, panning, and scrolling—across a wide range of devices (from desktop computer monitors to mobile phones)."
- lmm 13y agoI've never understood this attitude. If your monitor is too wide for comfortable reading, don't maximize your browser. Why would you ever want a window that was 2/3 white margins? Site makers: please please please let your text expand to the width of my browser. I made my browser that wide because I like it that way.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]