🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jan15.030539.14709@sics.se>, ollef@sics.se (Olle Furberg) says:

>So what is multimedia really about?

For a nice overview of those technologies, send a note
To: listserv@bitnic.educom.edu with Body of Text:

get teched syllabus

/Pete
--
Peter M. Weiss                   | pmw1 @ PSUADMIN  |  vm.psu.edu | psuvm
31 Shields Bldg - PennState Univ.| not affiliated with VM.PSU.EDU | PSUVM
University Park, PA USA 16802    | Secrecy is the guardian of bureaucracy

In article <1991Jan15.030539.14709@sics.se> ollef@sics.se (Olle Furberg) 
writes:
> What is the difference between HyperText and Multimedia, and what does
> HyperCard have to do with it?

Hypertext is a network of pieces of text. A given piece of text can be
linked to another (usually) related piece of text.  Readers of a hypertext
document can follow these links through the document.

Multimedia is the use of a variety of forms of media in a single system.
These media might include text, graphics, animation, sound, and full-motion
video.  This allows the most appropriate medium for presentation of a 
piece of information to be used.

Hypercard ties these two together (how successfully is a matter of opinion)
by making it relatively easy to build a network much like hypertext, except
that instead of a piece of text to communicate the information at each 
node,
any kind of media might be used.  This is sometimes called hypermedia.

Those are my definitions of hypertext and multimedia, although those of you
who have been doing it for a while probably have more precise definitions.

Pete Welter
Institute for the Learning Sciences
Northwestern University
welter@ils.nwu.edu

In article <1991Jan15.030539.14709@sics.se> ollef@sics.se (Olle Furberg) writes:
>
>So what is multimedia really about?
>
>What is the difference between HyperText and Multimedia, and what does
>HyperCard have to do with it?

Here's my opinion:

Hypertext is interlinked text that is traversed interactively by a user.
That is, they navigate between bits of text that are connected associatively
(either automatically by matching names and content, or manually by a human
author) by semantically-meaningful links (e.g. X contradicts Y, Z supports Y).

"Multimedia" is a nonsense word that literally means "multiple multiple mediums
(sic) of communication".  The more sensible word "Metamedia" means "a defining
or organizing layer for many media of communication (sic.)" which is more
to the point and removes the redundancy.  The phrase "Interactive Metamedia"
implies some level of user control, as does "Hypermedia", which supports
many media in the same associative structure as hypertext.

Hypertext/media systems tend to be divided rather sharply into navigational
(supporting movement in a corpus, semaintic links, queries, and typically text
only) and the presentational (supporting many media but with poor query and 
semantic link support).  HyperCard falls into the latter category, something
like HyperTies or NoteCards would fall into the former.  

What prevents all of these capabilities from being brought together is
basically technology & style.  We know a lot about how to index and
organize and query a text database because our entire culture is organized
around these things (e.g. books, the law, debates, dialogs...).  We know
a lot less about organizing sound or visual databases.  For instance, can
I index every picture of a tree ?  Or everything spoken with a Russian
accent ?  Or everything spoken in an angry tone of voice ?  And how do
we build technology to support such indexing and queries.  These unanswered
questions will fill in the "X" on this little chart:

			Text only	Other media
display abilities	nav & pres.	presentational
query/indexing		navigational	"X"

Even then, people will continue to experiment with all of the above.  In
some ways it is amazing how crude we are.  Once I saw an architectural
database which took the "revolutionary" step of organizing works by
period (Baroque, Classic, etc.) rather than by medium of display (blueprint,
model, photograph...).  Of course this is the way museums of architecture
(or anyone) would really like to be able to look at this material, so
museums today get very involved in such projects.  To some degree the
legal issues of reproduction are much easier for them to handle as well.

Finally, our language lacks a lot of essential terms that will probably
need to evolve as people continue to experiment with this stuff.  While
we have words for "reader", "viewer", and "listener", we have only "user"
or "player" to describe all the various ways one might participate in an
interactive experience.  Similarly we have no good terms for the "director"
of multimedia works, or any idea of exactly what training they should have,
save perhaps as graphic designers, musicians, AND filmmakers.  Since the
interactive character of Metamedia is the newest addition, perhaps the MM
director must become an expert at THAT and continue to rely on experts to
fill in the technical expertise, similar to a director's role in film.  But
it is not that simple.  A lot of interactive quality is in the nuances.  Ted
Nelson predicted that we would spend twenty years developing styles for 
hypermedia.  He said this in 1967, but we only really began a couple of
years ago.  

Any comments ?
-- 
  Craig Hubley   "...get rid of a man as soon as he thinks himself an expert."
  Craig Hubley & Associates------------------------------------Henry Ford Sr.
  craig@gpu.utcs.Utoronto.CA   UUNET!utai!utgpu!craig   craig@utorgpu.BITNET
  craig@gpu.utcs.toronto.EDU   {allegra,bnr-vpa,decvax}!utcsri!utgpu!craig