Newsgroups: bit.listserv.pacs-l
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:31:03 CDT
From:         Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS@UHUPVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Form Over Content

4 Messages, 108 Lines
*-----

From:         "Michael S. Hart" <HART@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject:      re: Form over content

A reference to a line in etext has no need of a page and line number,
such as "on page 7, line 7, the author says blah la la."  Because the
file IS an etext, a simple search for "blah la la" is sufficient, and
a (3) could be added if it is necessary to indicate that the referent
is the third time the author said the same words.

Of course, I am aware that the bias toward print modes will endure to
some for quite a while to come, while those who want faster, and less
expensive modes will move more quickly toward electronic text and the
lack of constraints by margination and pagination, and eventually the
illustrations will be included also.

Happy New Year!

Thank you for your interest,

Michael S. Hart, Professor of Electronic Text
Executive Director of Project Gutenberg Etext
Illinois Benedictine College, Lisle, IL 60532
No official connection to U of Illinois--UIUC
hart @uiucvmd.bitnet or hart@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu
*-----

From: Beverly Stafford <stafford@lclark.edu>
Subject: re: Form over content

Regardless of changes in form from print to electronic, there is
still the necessity of good design. On the page, margins frame the
words. In electronic text, there is a frame there around the screen,
but for books in electronic text, the way the words are set up still
counts and makes a difference in readability.
 As you know from looking at different editions of printed books,
those which are printed with tiny margins in small type all the same
size without variation are not as easy to read as those which have
larger margins, variation in type size and/or color, plus variations
in type face. All of these count for something in the net content
of the book, in more subtle or obvious ways. Perhaps we fisrt have a
phase of design, no offense intended to Michael Hart, which was
like some of the bland design of the 19th century for ordinary objects,
followed by something like a William Morris/Ruskin phase for electronic
printing of text. -Beverly Stafford, Lewis and Clark College Library
*-----

From: BURNET@zodiac.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: Form over content

On Jan. 7, Erik Seielstad replied to Michael Hart's comments regarding the form
vs. content battle:

>    I was inspired by the way you discussed the end of the battle of
>form over content.  The only point you seem to be missing is that the
>battle hasn't ended.  It is just changing forms.  Clearly just
>because a computer is processing the text for us, does not mean that
>the form of the material presented can just be discarded.

Not only can't the form of the material be disregarded, it MUST be
seriously considered.  In the 15th century, when printing was first
introduced, most printers assumed that the form of the manuscript could
simply be mimicked in print, the result being a long period before such
useful conventions as pagination, title pages, and tables of contents became
standardized. In the early 20th century when offset technology had been
adopted by the magazine industry but seemed to have no future as a book
printing technology, a small group of avant-garde artists revolutionized
the printing industry by paying attention to the specifics of form and
design that the new technology engendered.  Now, in the late 20th century,
we are confronted with an even more radical change in technology.  If we
don't pay attention to form, we may end up with alot of useless e-texts.

Something does need to replace the traditional functions of pagination--
helping the reader to  locate his/her place in a text, and aiding in
locating parts of a text which are cited elsewhere. The same mechanism
should also be useful for information retrieval, formatting for presentation
in other media, and, ultimately, for referencing blocks of texts which get
separated from their whole (as they will in hypertext systems).  SGML may be

the answer here, but it is only as good as its implementation.  If our major
text digitizing projects (such as the Gutenberg project) continue to charge
ahead full steam with little to no regard for form and accuracy (:,
what we will have is a bunch of e-junk which will ultimately do more to
hinder the development and support of this new medium than inaction.

Kathleen Burnett
burnet@zodiac.rutgers.edu
*-----

From: Ken Laws <LAWS@ai.sri.com>
Subject: Phrase Breaks

It seems very strange to be told that content is more
important than form by someone who chooses words primarily
by their length.  Still, self-imposed handicap not
withstanding, Michael Hart has a point.  Text is easier
to read if the line breaks are at phrase boundaries.
This occurs fairly naturally when one is typing in text,
but is difficult to achieve when formatting someone else's
text.  It would be nice if vi, emacs, TeX, and other
formatters had enough intelligence to break lines at
phrase boundaries when justifying or reformatting text.
Please, someone, develop a quick-and-dirty algorithm
that will work 98% of the time.

                                        -- Ken Laws
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU