home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Fritz: All Fritz
/
All Fritz.zip
/
All Fritz
/
FILES
/
WORDMISC
/
HYPER.LZH
/
FILE24
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1988-02-01
|
4KB
|
80 lines
PC-Hypertext and NoteCard "look-alike" programs
===============================================
If the current copyright concept of "look and feel" had existed a decade ago,
most of today's hypertext systems (with the exception of PC-Hypertext) simply
wouldn't exist. Some 20 mainframe implementations of hypertext, as well as
those that run on personal computers (HYPERCARD and GUIDE) bear an almost
copycat resemblance to the NOTECARDS hypertext system developed by Xerox
<FILE74 HYPERTEXT>.
For example, the current formats in keyword selection, icons, and border
treatment to frame-layering and displaying graphic networks first existed
in NOTECARDS.
The obvious question ...Why did most firms choose NOTECARDS as their model
of hypertext? Was it the best format, failure of imagination by
developers, or what I simply call Xerox envy? Let's consider each.
IS IT THE BEST The strengths of NOTECARD-like hypertext are found in
FORMAT? the integration of buttons and graphics. But the problems
are obvious -- time-delays in use, construction
difficulties, explosive disk storage, and weaknesses in
communicating knowledge.
Knowledge is only I think this last problem is fundamental. Unstructured
information with information (spaghetti hypertext) is a disservice to
structure users because it fails to deliver knowledge, which is
simply information with structure.
NO IMAGINATION If the defects in NOTECARDS are obvious, then why have
so few of the subsequent firms incorporated
improvements? Where are the equivalent hierarchy linkers
such as MaxThink, network linkers such as HOUDINI, or
utilities similar to ours that split, cross-reference,
cross-footnote, and validate information structures?
See <FILE64> for descriptions of such software.
Where are the For example, we have built several multi-megabyte
hypertext hypertext systems involving many thousands of files and
construction links. The tools listed above are essential. Yet, we
tools? see no mention of similar products produced by other
firms <FILE34 TOOLS>. As a result, one might conclude
that most NOTECARD emulations are just that -- copies of
an interesting concept that already exists, but weak on
implementation.
XEROX SUCCESSES Consider this. Some people believe that while there is
no end to ideas from Xerox, the firm consistently fails
to implement most of their good ideas.
Did Xerox invent As proof, some people suggest that Xerox invented the
the MAC? Sun and Macintosh computer (Star), the mouse, photocopy
machines, workstations, and network communications.
Other firms seem more successful in translating Xerox's
innovations to successful markets.
Notecard Given that belief, some firms seemed to have taken the
emulations? next step in their almost duplicate implementations of
NOTECARDS. Their products are not hypertext, but
NOTECARD emulations -- including all of its strengths and
weaknesses.
From my viewpoint, Xerox's NOTECARDS is only one vision of hypertext;
PC-Hypertext is another. However, the best hypertext format is ultimately
determined by the information needs and the hardware/software technology
available to the user. See <FILE53 TALENTS NEEDED>.
Whether you use a Macintosh, PC, VAX, Sun, or Unix system, strong differences
still exist between NOTECARD and PC-Hypertext visions of hypertext.
While both are hypertext, I see the most important differences as not our
emphasis on ASCII formats, but our emphasis on structuring information (i.e.,
structured hypertext) and the utilities used to do that. See <FILE28 STRUCTURED
HYPERTEXT>.
Neil Larson 1/16/88 FILE24
44 Rincon Rd., Kensington, CA 94707
Copyright MaxThink 1988 -- Call 415-428-0104 for permission to reprint