> I actually don't agree with this. I think _not_ having "essential dynamism" where it's not needed is actually a feature, not a bug.
I couldn't agree more. Dynamism is great for web _apps_, but it's the last thing I want in a document
I couldn't agree more. Dynamism is great for web _apps_, but it's the last thing I want in a document
There are fantastic, beautiful interactive experiences (for lack of a better word) that are obviously not documents (they can't be represented on paper, there is code running) but they're not really applications, either (they are fully offline, self-contained, state that's only evident on the page).
But they are, universally: dynamic.
Examples: - https://ciechanow.ski/mechanical-watch/ - http://worrydream.com/TenBrighterIdeas/ - even : https://neal.fun/space-elevator/
This is what I think the future of textbooks and presentations should be. But I think part of the problem is that not only do we not have tools geared toward creating them, we don't even have a name for these things. If we say "document", they flunk the pdf test. If we say "web application", they are lumped into the same lumbering category as office docs and enterprise software.
Maybe Nota is a step in the right direction. But it'd be an even better step if it didn't call itself "21st century documents", if for no other reason than to defend against the valid criticism you levied against it.
I think that one is rather a special case. You could print it out with the first still of each bit and probably get out 90% of the content/context, and modify document to print out a few stills from each interactive part and get the same intellectual content. In it's case, the interactivity is superfluous, it's there to spark joy. It's really an example of a document with outstanding figures/visual aid - the interactivity is just a bonus.
Similarly, the space elevator could be a picture book/pdf. The interactive bits there also spark joy.
The tenbrighterideas page mostly annoyed me. It's just bastardizing structure to be "interactive", which is to say most of the information is hidden away behind a bunch of clicks and it could have been a document, with one page dedicated to each idea.
I'm sure you can convey the same information in text format (like you say, you could just print out the page), but these particular sites would be a lot weaker, because part of their explanatory power is the interactivity.
The original quote was that dynamism was "the last thing I want in a document", and I think these interactive diagrams and explainers directly show how useful dynamism can be in conveying information.
That's not to say that all dynamism is good - I don't usually want you to use Javascript to just load a new page, my browser can do that just fine - but every medium can be abused. That doesn't mean that medium is bad!
To my point it's "the last thing I want in a document", I stand by it. What I mean is I should be able to print it and really lose nothing central to the content. Yes, digital offers features which may enrich the experience/use/navigation, but at the same time there's questions of accessibility and ease of parsing. If I _have_ to interact with things to get the information//content out, it's effectively a web app, and not a document, and if done wrong it actively interferes with my ability to absorb the information. IMO the brighter ideas page firmly falls under that last point.
The watch page is wonderful, and the visuals and interactivity is done masterfully, in such a way it's obtrusive and not _required_ to understand the document.
I'd classify the elevator page as a web app, but there's really nothing keeping it from being a document/children's book.
And I just really, really, did not like the brighter ideas page. I think the content is good, but the execution got in the way instead of adding to the experience.
For example, with the watch page, if we're defining document by printability, it makes a poor document - while you can print it out, what you'll end up with is a document with lots of static pictures and a bunch of (now useless) text referencing how you can move the pictures to see different things. If I wanted a fully printable document, I'd find a different one that was written with the expectation of being printed - maybe a book about watches, or an entirely static page. That will suit the print medium significantly better than this interactive page.
It makes me think a bit of a science museum, in the sense that most science museums will have a lot of text written around that explains all the concepts they want to discuss - this is how a pivot works, that's what a cow's digestive system looks like, here's a description of a space ship or whatever. And you could collect all this text and turn it into a book, and it would be an informative book that you could read and thereby learn something.
But the value of a museum is that it doesn't just have to be text. You can put a pivot into your visitors' hands; you can show food moving between different parts of a cow's digestive system in real time; you can show genuine pieces of real rockets and discuss what journeys they've been on. The medium allows you a huge amount of extra freedom, and a good museum curator will use that freedom - wisely - to produce an experience that allows visitors to get more insight than they would have if they'd just "printed out" the museum's text and read it all.
That's not to say that written text doesn't have its own advantages - you don't need to visit a book every time you want to get information from it, for example! What's key is that by tailoring the content to the medium that we're employing, we can produce a better result than by trying to apply the norms of a different medium. If we'd built our museum like a book, it would have been a bad museum.
I think a similar principle applies to the web - it comes with its own set of tools and features that differentiate it from books or print media. Some of those are fairly subtle - the ability to reference different pages and sites using hyperlinks, for example - but part of that is the interactivity. And not all sites need interactivity at all times, and the best sites use interactivity only when it adds to the experience (just like the best museums - not the ones that surround you with flashing lights and noise just to distract your attention). But the use of interactivity can elevate a simple text far beyond what a print document can do. I think the watch site is a really good example of what happens when you don't see web pages as "just" documents, and rather embrace their unique qualities.
That's why I don't think it's always helpful to make this category distinction between "document" and "web app", particularly when "document" just means "uses the norms of a different form of media", because the whole point of the web is that it a new media form, with its own features and capabilities.
That term is really quaint these days, and it doesn't fully capture what you're talking about. IIRC, it was more prepackaged animations, photos, video, and music; rather than "dynamic code running on paper"
"Dynagraph"? Sorry, that's lame, but there's my entry.
For more examples, see [2].
Very much agree that this is what explanations and presentations should be in the modern age. I think a documentation language (what Nota and Typst aim to be) is still needed in this age of Large Language Models, when the ideas are more complex than those expressible by natural languages.
Reputable scientific journals now post videos online alongside their articles. Interactivity is even better for understanding. But permanence is an issue I suppose.
I think accessibility is a major issue, where the text doesn't make as much sense without the interactive bits, and often the text itself isn't substantial enough to be stand alone.
But also, it's starting to cross the line between web app and document. I can print out a pdf and I just lose peripheral QoL benefits like document search. However, if I try to print a web app I usually lose a lot of the content/context.
Edit: as far as supplemental material goes, I'm all for it. People learn differently, so video, audio, web app, whatever are all great supplemental materials, but a good document should be able to stand by itself.