Newsgroups: bit.listserv.pacs-l
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:17:14 CDT
From:         Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS@UHUPVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Dead Trees and Humanities

3 Messages, 80 Lines
*-----

From:      "Walt Crawford" <BR.WCC@RLG>
Subject:   Dead trees, R.I.P.

I decided not to pursue the "dead trees" discussion,
specifically what value print adds to "information"
and why an all-electronic future would be dystopian,
for two reasons:
(1) I suspected that those asking the questions would
    tend to find any answers unacceptable, thus making
    the process a waste of time/energy;
(2) I had a feeling that one or more e-zealots would,
    in fact, make a point of "responding" to every single
    point made in favor of books or print, making the
    process not only a waste of energy but extremely
    tedious.
I believe that both points are true, and that the second
has been reasonably well demonstrated. That's probably
unfortunate, but it's also life.

=Walt Crawford, br.wcc@rlg (BITNET), br.wcc@rlg.stanford.edu=
=Permission to forward or copy granted if signature retained=
=Usual disclaimers apply: my words, my opinions.=
*-----

From: STRAUSS@UNCA.BITNET
Subject: Re: Dead Trees and Humanities

To Lee Jaffe and the Tristram Shandy comment (as well as speculation
for everyone):
In our future (I hope), when reading a hypertext online, our Shandy will
have a marbelized graphic filling the screen. Clicking on an icon will give us
(1) a description of marble
(2) a short history of marbelized paper
(3) and more icons, if we wish to learn more about marble.

I can't wait!

++           Bob Strauss            ++
++         Ramsey Library           ++
++          UNC-Asheville           ++
++       Asheville, NC 28804        ++
++       Strauss@UNCA.bitnet        ++
++     Strauss@uncavx.unca.edu      ++
*-----

From: "Peter Graham, Rutgers U., (908) 932-2741" <GRAHAM@ZODIAC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Dead Trees and Humanities

Karen Summerhill at Georgetown just made the interesting points:

>Just wanted to add a quick addendum to Lee Jaffe's thoughts about the book as
artifact:  If the book is converted to a bitmapped image, one loses less
information than if it is converted to a text file.  The "look" if not the
"feel" of the printed page is preserved, placement on the page of words or
graphics remains essentially as the author or editor intended.  Of course, you
also retain the disadvantages of the bitmapping: high memory use, need for
added indexing of some kind, lack of flexibility...

If, on the other hand, the work is converted to a fully searchable text file,
while accessibility is enriched, the facsimile qualities are lost in addition
to the "artifactual information", if you will. <

PG again:  sorry to quote so much, but it illustrates what I think is a good
point to remember:  the formats are different and have different uses, and
finding the right format for the right use will simply be more complex; as
with so many library issues, the opportunities are additional, not
substitutional.

(Ranganathan:  every format its user?)

I'm reminded of the "catalog backup" question that was common a few years ago
when we closed card catalogs for online catalogs:  "How will you back  up the
catalog so that if the power goes off we can have access?"  The answer:  we
won't.  On the other hand, the catalog is now available in many places outside
the reading room.  It's *different*, and we work with them differently.

--pg