Tue, May 24, 2005
Purple Numbers: Optimized for Synthesis
#
ChrisDent has been having
some
good
exchanges
about PurpleNumbers with AdinaLevin and PhilJones. I don't have much
to add, as I think Chris is spot on. Two comments struck me, though. (IQV)
First, Phil
claims that PurpleNumbers are optimized for reading at the expense of
writing. His point is that PurpleNumbers, as currently
implemented, add overhead to the writing process, whereas the
pay-off comes for the reader. I emphasize as currently
implemented, because we just haven't gotten around to making them
mostly transparent in the writing process. Hacking one of the
WYSIWYG JavaScript text editors to support PurpleNumbers should do
the trick. (IQW)
However, I really liked Chris's
response: (IQX)
Yes, purple numbers do try to favor the reader and the act of
reading, but not just for reading. They favor the reader so the reader
may more easily do more writing. The whole point is for purple numbers
and tools like it to be a generative force in the synthesis of new
understandings. (IQY)
Phil can write all he wants, and I can read all I want, but until I
write down something that builds on what Phil says, while making
chains of reference back through the many layers of context, there's
been no synthesis, at least not any that is available outside the
confines of my own mind. (IQZ)
GranularAddressability enables synthesis. Wanna know what makes blogs
conversational? PermaLinks, which are a form of
GranularAddressability. (IR0)
A lot of people don't get this. I read TheSportsGuy over at
ESPN.com all the time (despite the fact that I
hate all Boston sports teams with a passion), and at the past two
Super Bowls, he wrote what ESPN.com called a "blog." It sure
looked like a blog, but in reality, it was just one-way publishing.
Folks couldn't comment on his entries, because they couldn't link to
any of them. I see this all the time with other major media outlets
trying to jump on the blog bandwagon. (IR1)
Which brings me to the second comment that jumped out at me. In his
response to Adina, Chris
wrote: (IR2)
Clearly I am in far too deep with purple stuff: I need a
translator. The above can be so much meaningless noise and I find
little time to make things cogent. (IR3)
I'm not the best proselytizer of PurpleNumbers, not because I'm not
proud of them (I am), not because I don't value them (I do), and not
because I can't explain their value clearly (I can). There's a
tremendous amount of deep thinking underlying these little purple
critters, and the implications are fascinating. But before you can
understand any of this, you've got to care. And unless you're one of
those strange individuals who just gets it, you've got to try them
before you'll buy them. (IR4)
A lot of folks think I invented PurpleNumbers. Not true at all. I
was one of those folks who didn't care, one of the first in fact.
PurpleNumbers are an HTML manifestation of Augment's granular
addressability scheme, invented by DougEngelbart and
made purple years later by his daughter, ChristinaEngelbart. When I
first started working with Doug, he kept insisting that all of our
knowledge products on the Web have PurpleNumbers. I didn't think it
was a priority, but I knew I could easily whip up a tool to generate
them, so I wrote Purple to
humor him. Then a funny thing happened. Once I had them, I used
them, simply because they were there. Then I started missing them
when they weren't there. Then it dawned on me: These little purple
thingies sure were darn useful. And I started thinking about why. (IR5)
The point of my story is this: I'm perfectly happy to have a deep,
convoluted discussion about some esoteric aspect of PurpleNumbers. If
you don't believe me, try me. Or read my
blog entries on the
matter. But if you really want to understand why they're so
important, just give them a try for a month, then try living without
them. (IR6)
/tech/purple |
Posted at 8:30pm
Comments
Comments disabled until future notice. If you'd like to contact me, use my i-name (=eekim).