At 07:25 PM 7/12/1998 -0400, you wrote:
>In your message dated: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 17:41:28 CDT Lee you responded to
me in part:
>>
>
>Did you find the last book you read awkward? I didn't (well, I just finished
>_Foucalt's Pendulum_, and it *was* awkward, but books aren't generally
>thought of as awkward).
>
A book and a WWW piece are different media, and among books are types that
I read quite differently. Some I read straight through (prose literature),
others (secondary works) I read somewhat less linearly (scanning sections
out of order, using TOCs, indices, etc.). I seldom read a WWW site straight
through -- I suppose I worry about online time. If it's a keeper I often
print what I want to read more carefully; I have several "editions" of the
FAQ that I've printed off. "Awkwardness" in this context does not have to
do with linearity or lack thereof, it has to do with eschewing readily
available conveniences to force a reader to read my text one way only. I
wouldn't, for instance, exclude a TOC in a book I was publishing in order
to force a reader to read the entire text, or refuse an index because
someone might read my book "out of the index." (I read plenty books this
way in graduate school.) If you wish to keep the document in the format of
a single HTML document file (which at this point I too would prefer),
hypertextual bookmarks would be a boon, so that one can easily jump to the
section on buying a used camera or the section on lenses and then back to
the TOC.
>
>Humm. Are you seriously proposing that these links would give the FAQ
>more informational value than it otherwise contains? I dispute that.
>It *would* make the FAQ easier to use for those who had read it already,
>and it would make it *appear* to be easier to use for others. But new
>readers would probably end up missing much. Furthmore, to break it up
>into little pieces would make it *very* hard to print out as a
>monolithic document, which would discourage one of my main visions for
>the use of the FAQ, use in the field.
>
Right. I wouldn't break it up in small parts, merely bookmark TOC items to
the text sections for easier navigation. No, I don't think links and the
logical or literal breaking up of a document into parts improves the
informational value. The most that they could do if done well is make it
easier for readers to steer to that informational content.
>
>I obviously can't "force" anyone to read the FAQ throughly before
>posting to the list, nor would I want to. I also don't believe the
>current version of the FAQ is as hard to read as you imply. You make it
>sound as if it occupied 1000+ pages. A quick count shows that it is
>currently at about 33 60-line pages. This is shorter than many
>magazines we all read *each month*. It does not seem that the FAQ is
>as large and hard to get through as you imply.
>
No such implication intended. I don't think it is terribly large and I
don't think it is hard to get through. I tend to use it in printed form
because it is easier for me to find things in it that way. If this is what
you wish for your readers to do, I guess in my case your design is working.
However, I would print it off whether you bookmarked the TOC lines to text
sections or not.
>
>It's a time-expensive experiment to do right. And we don't want to do
>it wrong, do we?
>
... snipping some of my prose, Lee you continue ...
>
>Nope, it's worse, cuz it makes it hard to print out. Or if I maintain
>two separate versions, it introduces the possibility of small
>inconsistencies.
>
No, don't do two versions! Of course, links within a single document do not
create the printing problems you anticipate.
... snipping some more ...
>
>Finally, please don't get the idea that this is the first time I have
>considered hyperlinks for the FAQ. I have been wrestling with the issue
>since the first version that I put up on our web server years ago, and
>the jury is not in yet on whether I will add them or not.
>
Believe me, it's OK with me if you don't change anything. If you do want to
make changes, then as I've said above I would urge you to do no more than
create some links or bookmarks within the document. I appreciate the
simplicity of the FAQ and I think its straightforwardness does indeed
contribute to its usefulness. We have different views about how to get
people to read things, but so what? It's hard for me to believe that you
are really concerned about people reading the FAQ cover to cover, but that
is probably because when I came across it I could not put it down. Perhaps
my own experience with it validates your predilections. You'll have to
decide. I know I've sure let Gary S. down at this whip-cracking business,
but then I'm a midwesterner ...
Joel
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|