Yet, it is not simply issues of access that are changing. Professor Hall's experience is relevant, I believe, because it reminds us that there are cultural forces at work in all spaces in that there are assumptions about what it is possible to do in particular spaces and in how the space should be used. From what we think can be done often develop expectations about what should be done. In addition, the expression indicates to us that the work is no longer readily changeable, that it has been bound and cannot be unbound, that every available copy is the same as every other copy, and that each copy will have those familiar identifying characteristics such as a title page, copyright notice, justified margins, and index, characteristics that communicate in a visual way that the information is in final form. Placing information on the Internet not only makes the information more accessible, but places it in a form where many of these facets of print works, such as fixity, uniformity, and authenticity, will be questioned.
Visual communication can, in many contexts, be much more effective than text.
11 Print, however, has never fostered a very supportive environment for text and images to coexist. There may not be any examples of graphical communication in this issue of the Review but this is likely to change as the electronic environment becomes more supportive of visual communication than print was. We should put such agreements in time capsules because they represent a mindset oriented around the medium of print. It is a mindset that reflects a medium where visual communication is discouraged. It is a mindset which assumes particular roles and relationships for editor, author, and reader.