On May 7, 6:34 pm, gen...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> This newsgroup is still waiting for a hypertext revival :)
> Though there's very little traffic here, I hope that a handful of
> hardcore hypertextologists keep an eye on it. To them I appeal.
>
> I've posted a hypertext and invite you to take a look at
it:http://www.usesimulator.com/google/index.html
>
> The rationale is as follows: there is hypertext, and there are
> hypertexts.
> This distinction often goes unnoticed, and as a result people try to
> make one hypertext for all occasions. It's like saying AUM in reply to
> each and every question. It may be OK for a Universal Mind, but it'll
> hardly solve many practical problems.
>
> The alternative approach is to have an individual hypertext for every
> practical situation that warrants it. The interface and functionality
> of such a hypertext depend on particular requirements and availability
> of technology and other resources. It may be a description, a
> reference tool, a navigation device, a tool of collaboration, any
> combination of the above, or something else. They are always definite
> entities - addressable, scalable, etc.
>
> An example of an 'ad hoc' hypertext is the Use Simulator for Google
> Search posted at the above URL.
> It is a combined reference tool and user guide with interactivity and
> feedback. It might look like a website or a Web 2.0 device, but I'd
> rather not get entangled in words.
>
> So, what d'you think?
>
> gennbd
>
> Please use any feedback box in the Use Simulator for your comments.
> Thank you!
Gennbd
I agree that there is a distinction between "hypertext" and
"hypertexts." In fact, I prefer to capitalize Hypertext when thinking
about it in wide, genre-like terms and to refer to hypertext documents
when thinking about anything else. But I'm not sure what you are
getting at with the idea of having an individual hypertext for every
situation that warrants it because that is the way it already is.
Every hypertext depends on usage for its existence. Without readers/
users navigating and clicking through a hypertext, it would be no
different from a linear, printed text. If it were not for context,
there would be no hypertexts at all (if you believe in the definition
of Hypertext that focuses on linking as its key trait).
What I think you may be getting at is naming a few categories of
hypertexts, like Ad Hoc HTs. This is similar to what, I believe,
Stuart Multhrop has done in an article whose name escapes me at the
moment, except he was working with patterns of navigation in hypertext
fiction. Perhaps it is time to categorize hypertext on a new level,
but I'm hesitant about that idea. Can we limit Hypertext's potential
by trying to categorize the hypertexts we use?
|
