example of ad hoc hypertext - Use Simlator for Google Search

Hi all!

This newsgroup is still waiting for a hypertext revival :)
Though there's very little traffic here, I hope that a handful of
hardcore hypertextologists keep an eye on it. To them I appeal.

I've posted a hypertext and invite you to take a look at it:


The rationale is as follows: there is hypertext, and there are
hypertexts.
This distinction often goes unnoticed, and as a result people try to
make one hypertext for all occasions. It's like saying AUM in reply to
each and every question. It may be K for a Universal Mind, but it'll
hardly solve many practical problems.

The alternative approach is to have an individual hypertext for every
practical situation that warrants it. The interface and functionality
of such a hypertext depend on particular requirements and availability
of technology and other resources. It may be a description, a
reference tool, a navigation device, a tool of collaboration, any
combination of the above, or something else. They are always definite
entities - addressable, scalable, etc.

An example of an 'ad hoc' hypertext is the Use Simulator for Google
Search posted at the above URL.
It is a combined reference tool and user guide with interactivity and
feedback. It might look like a website or a Web 2.0 device, but I'd
rather not get entangled in words.

So, what d'you think?

gennbd

Please use any feedback box in the Use Simulator for your comments.
Thank you!

May 7, 6:34 pm, gen@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all!
>
This newsgroup is still waiting for a hypertext revival :)
Though there's very little traffic here, I hope that a handful of
hardcore hypertextologists keep an eye on it. To them I appeal.
>
I've posted a hypertext and invite you to take a look at
>
The rationale is as follows: there is hypertext, and there are
hypertexts.
This distinction often goes unnoticed, and as a result people try to
make one hypertext for all occasions. It's like saying AUM in reply to
each and every question. It may be K for a Universal Mind, but it'll
hardly solve many practical problems.
>
The alternative approach is to have an individual hypertext for every
practical situation that warrants it. The interface and functionality
of such a hypertext depend on particular requirements and availability
of technology and other resources. It may be a description, a
reference tool, a navigation device, a tool of collaboration, any
combination of the above, or something else. They are always definite
entities - addressable, scalable, etc.
>
An example of an 'ad hoc' hypertext is the Use Simulator for Google
Search posted at the above URL.
It is a combined reference tool and user guide with interactivity and
feedback. It might look like a website or a Web 2.0 device, but I'd
rather not get entangled in words.
>
So, what d'you think?
>
gennbd
>
Please use any feedback box in the Use Simulator for your comments.
Thank you!

Gennbd

I agree that there is a distinction between "hypertext" and
"hypertexts." In fact, I prefer to capitalize Hypertext when thinking
about it in wide, genre-like terms and to refer to hypertext documents
when thinking about anything else. But I'm not sure what you are
getting at with the idea of having an individual hypertext for every
situation that warrants it because that is the way it already is.

Every hypertext depends on usage for its existence. Without readers/
users navigating and clicking through a hypertext, it would be no
different from a linear, printed text. If it were not for context,
there would be no hypertexts at all (if you believe in the definition
of Hypertext that focuses on linking as its key trait).

What I think you may be getting at is naming a few categories of
hypertexts, like Ad Hoc HTs. This is similar to what, I believe,
Stuart Multhrop has done in an article whose name escapes me at the
moment, except he was working with patterns of navigation in hypertext
fiction. Perhaps it is time to categorize hypertext on a new level,
but I'm hesitant about that idea. Can we limit Hypertext's potential
by trying to categorize the hypertexts we use?

May 9, 8:20 am, becker <superjaberwo@gmail.comwrote:

>
I agree that there is a distinction between "hypertext" and
"hypertexts." In fact, I prefer to capitalize Hypertext when thinking
about it in wide, genre-like terms and to refer to hypertext documents
when thinking about anything else. But I'm not sure what you are
getting at with the idea of having an individual hypertext for every
situation that warrants it because that is the way it already is.
>
Every hypertext depends on usage for its existence. Without readers/
users navigating and clicking through a hypertext, it would be no
different from a linear, printed text. If it were not for context,
there would be no hypertexts at all (if you believe in the definition
of Hypertext that focuses on linking as its key trait).
>
What I think you may be getting at is naming a few categories of
hypertexts, like Ad Hoc HTs. This is similar to what, I believe,
Stuart Multhrop has done in an article whose name escapes me at the
moment, except he was working with patterns of navigation in hypertext
fiction. Perhaps it is time to categorize hypertext on a new level,
but I'm hesitant about that idea. Can we limit Hypertext's potential
by trying to categorize the hypertexts we use?


Here are two extremes - closely controlled hypertext systems, such as
those "augmenting human intellect", on the one hand, and the loosely
controlled WWW on the other. The former is pure research at this
technological level, and the latter is what it is.

"Individual" hypertexts might be a transitional phase from these
extremes to an intermediate state with more organization.

The point is that current technology is not fit to process semantic
dimensions of Hypertext (I agree to capitalize it in some cases :).
People can, but they have no good tools.

Making small situational hypertexts of human scale and with built-in
scalability can serve at least two purposes - to accumulate machine-
processable data for tasks related to the Semantic Web, and to meet
very practical needs. Literary hypertexts are far beyond this
approach. It's all about reference and "how to" stuff, maybe some
descriptions at the moment. It's all we can do with the available
technology.

That's why I chose Google Search for the topic of my experimental
hypertext. It is manageable in size, simple in logic, and practicable.

There is a resemblance between such a hypertext and a website. The
difference is in the degree of organization and readiness for higher-
level integration. It is a kind of an ebook, but not a paper-book
imitation.

way to re-use such hypertexts would be to apply systems like Topic
Maps to already semantically organized information. Ted Nelson said
something to that effect in his recent presentation, without naming
too many names:


What's most important, these hypertexts are semantically "mature",
unlike almost all of websites which have little to do with the left
hemisphere. Wikipedia is close, but again, if you compare a wiki with
my site, you'll see that wiki's are too close to paper to make me
happy. Not that my site is perfect, it only uses more of Hypertext
capabilities than many other similar products.

Thanks for your response,