🚀 go-pugleaf

Dave Taylor writes:

> [...] this definition presupposes that to be 'literate' one has to
> be well read in 'the literature'.  I disagree with this too - some
> of the most lucid and brilliant people I've known haven't read much
> of anything by way of 'the classics' or 'the literature'.

Since someone has already disagreed with this point, I just thought I'd say
that I agree with you, Dave.  Although reading "the classics" (or whatever
you think might be literature) might give you some kind of style to pattern
yourself after, one might just as easily be able to write clearly without
ever reading anything "worthwhile."  It's all a matter of style.

> In twenty years I'll be able to sketch a drawing on my screen (or
> tablet, or ??) and send it to you.  No words will be associated with
> it.  I will be able to send it by flipping through my list of faces
> until I find yours and saying "yes" when the computer asks me "send
> it to Debra?".  You will receive it by the computer telling you
> "Hey!  New mail from Dave!"  and you will be able to actually see it
> by simply flipping through the stack of incoming mail and pressing
> the part of the screen that displays my message.  To print it you'll
> be able to simply say "print it" or drag it across the screen to the
> little printer picture.

Twenty years?  The technology is here right now!  Later in your article you
mention a Macintosh.  Using a Mac, with pretty minimal programming, this
could be done quite easily.  In fact, I'm writing a mail program for the Mac
that is going to logon to the Unix system, download all the new mail, give
me a list of what's there, let me read certain messages, etc., etc., etc...

But instead of typing "28 <return>" to read message 28, and hitting spacebar
to go to the next screen (nothing personal against Elm, Dave :-), I would
simply click on the icon representing message 28, and use the scroll bars to
move thru the message.

And if I wanted to send (or forward) a message, I'll have a little list of
icons that represent people I'd normally send things to.  I click on the
icon that represents J. Random, and the message goes to him.

The graphics part would not be difficult either.  A special header,
identifying the message as non-text, would flag the mailer to parse out the
graphics and display the pretty pictures (and, of course, let me file them
away so I can keep them forever).

> In this context there is really nothing that we need English for, or any
> written language, for that matter.

True, if you are sending ideas that can be represented visually instead of
verbally.

An interesting example for this: my brother has learning disabilities.  A
recent test he was given found that he does very well in visual activities
and spatial relationships, but not so well in verbal activities.  A graphic
mail system would allow him (and many other people) to communicate their
ideas without having to resort to verbal (and therefore less clear, in their
case) communication.  And, as you mention, the message would be more
understandable by people who did not read English (or whatever language you
might be speaking in) well or at all.

Someone needs to sit down and use all this technology we have lying around
(high speed networks, graphic interfaces (Macs), etc.) and construct a good,
public, accessible *idea* network that anyone could use.

John Labovitz		..!{rlgvax,seismo}!bdmrrr!potomac!jsl