Pretty interesting read per se but their overall UI concept definitely triggers tiddlyesque ideas.
Personally, I’ve long been fascinated with the idea of “expanding segments” within a text that you can click on to expand the text for deeper elaboration, i.e you basically start out with a shallow summary and click any little segment that you want more elaboration on (while staying in the text, not navigating away). Yes, I know this can be achieved in TW - the bottleneck is that it is very demanding to author such texts. Just like with the text in the article above, it takes a lot of effort to author on multiple levels and while still staying within the conceptual limits of the snip elaborated on. I suspect AI will be the solution.
I think good authors can and do already do this well, the key is choosing to do it. Unless the result of an AI solution is very good, it may marginalise other readers even more, by making assumptions that do not correctly address neuro-diverse readers. This risk is trusting the AI (or lets be honest only Machine learning) and not reviewing it with human, or the eyes of those with a lived experience.
Being able to write in plain language is a skill we should all develop and do as often as possible.
It seems to me that you guys are under estimating what these things will be able to do, but even what they already do now. Below is a good video (from one of the channels I subscribe to, and warmly recommend). As the presenter points out in most of his videos; don’t look at what it does now but think of what it will be “two (scientific-) papers down the line”. The progress astonishing.
I work as a teacher so I think you can imagine what I think about the importance of writing well, but chances are that 100 years ago, we would have said “Being able to shoe the horse is a skill we should all develop and do as often as possible.”
I like the section that when you to click on text in the block on the left, it highlighted text on the right. I can see that functionality as useful in highlighting certain things in another block for reference, or comparability, or just to make it more apparent.
The alternate text toggling with the “p” is interesting and very specific to this presentation. I don’t see me using alternate text like that in anything I do. Well, wait - one specific document I have seen and want to to create as my own: comparative code. For example, side-by-side comparison of database commands and SQL showing the same functionality in mysql, mariadb, postgresql, oracle, db2, etc. Or shell scripting showing code differences between sh, bash, ksh, csh, etc for the same functionality. Same thing for various coding languages like c++, Rust, etc. All of that I have seen in simple excel-style columns of information - so that you can see them side-by-side, but this example mostly hides all but the visible version.
Anyway - couple of interesting features for presenting text in a web page. @twMat - Thanks for the share!
Wow, that article you posted is interesting. It is also disturbing to me. One reason is the job I do. I teach philosophy. I agree that short familiar words are helpful. But some ideas are hard to express with short familiar words. For example:
“intellectual disability”
“greenhouse gas emissions.”
“anti-foundationalism”
“counterfactual conditionals”
Easy sentences do sometimes help readers. I wish Immanuel Kant wrote shorter sentences. Immanuel Kant was a philosopher. I think Immanuel Kant had good reasons to write complex sentences. Complex sentences are sentences that connect ideas. For example, words like ‘if’ and ‘then’ help connect ideas. In my job we use complex sentences.
In my job I sometimes write about how two kinds of things are different. Some of these things are abstract things. Abstract things are hard to touch or see.
To understand abstract things, we use words about ideas. Suppose we are talking about ideas that are not true. Maybe I want to say something like this: “misunderstanding” is not the same as “ideological manipulation”… Maybe we need to talk about whether it was “disingenuous” for Santos to admit to “embellishing his resume”. [OK, I give up, that took a long time to write! It was good exercise, though!]
Then again, Santos could learn from the article you posted. It would help him understand. He should just say “I lied.” Sometimes easy words are more true.
That is possible, but I don’t think I am underestimating what is possible, it is very exciting and very useful for sure.
However not withstanding this, I do think many are also underestimating;
How much can be done even without machine learning
The limitations to machine learning
Eg gaining wisdom from what is learned not just effective answers.
the ease of systemic bias and improper feedback loops
over reliance on systems without alternatives
Atrification of previous approaches
I am a practicing “Modern Sceptic” not a “Cynic”.
To be clear for example, Sceptic’s know the evidence is in for climate change (and other scientifically established facts), the other sceptics are actually deniers, usually trying to hide their vested interest.
But perhaps I am cynical that we will take the necessary actions.
This I think explains why I am interested in AI/Machine learning but also sceptical.
I really wanted to read that, but I was immediately turned off by the whole design of that page.
For an article that is supposed to discuss accessibility, the design of that page is, from the viewpoint of my cognitive disabilities, a real poop show.
They seem to have a pretty narrow (or lame?) view of accessibility, and/or narrow view of cognitive disabilities.
In my case it would be “grey scale perception” … mainly because my optical nerves can’t differentiate shades of grey well (about 900 is normal; mine is about 30).
The point is “the visual” ain’t so easy for everyone.
In my case it is a consequence of a neurological disease, but let’s not go there, I function fine without saying what it is.
BUT, I think catering for every possible visual disability would likely be impossible — A hiding-to-nothing???
On a finer scale we all have disabilities - normally called “individual quirks”, “preferences”, “physical traits”, etc - that limit us in how we perform and perceive. We are, after all, limited by a piece of gray jelly trapped in a bag of meat and bones that decide how we perceive the world and what we can do. From an accessibility perspective, I think we should all be extremely excited about AI - it is the first truly practical tool that at least has a chance to totally revolutionize the interaction and information between the jelly and the world. So, yeah, I think accessibility for sure “is still in infancy”.
Maybe I’m a little jaded by my experience: IMO, “accessibility” (of the cognitive kind) is barely a gleam in someone’s eye and conception will be slow because the “swimmers” are lethargic and without sense of direction…
Nah, we don’t all have disabilities. We all experience similar things, but the level of challenge differs wildly.
It is a disability when the thing causes general dysfunction, sometimes extreme (i.e. life-threatening) dysfunction.
A month ago, I stepped off a ladder while on the fourth rung. Nearly killed myself. That can happen to anybody, but this kind of thing is my normal, not the oddball occurence.
a second cognitive issue that could not be diagnosed
To me, “inattentive sub-type” is a junk description. “Attention Regulation” is my problem re ADHD.
ADHD is helpful to go find help resources, but it is a junk label otherwise.
What I experience:
Every thing is grabbing my attention. Everything is a shiny object or a … SQUIRREL ! And every thing is interesting.
Sensory overload, all of the time. I perceive everything all of the time: the heat from that light bulb over there, the motion of every hair on my arm when there is a breeze, the smell and taste of my coffee, all of the objects in the room. Every thing is being picked up by one or more of my senses all of the time.
Cognitive overload, all of the time. Because every little thing is connected to every other thing, with pretty much just one level of separation between a thought and the next thought.
And cognitive overload (processing every thing) compounded by every thing being interesting and by processing of all the sensory stuff.
And physical ailments (discomforts) that add to sensory overload and cognitive overload, all of the time.
I find peace/calm/sanity in things that help me stay focused (in which I can immerse myself), that have well defined and visible structure, that do not have moving distractions, that do not have me playing a game of “Where’s Waldo”, that do not have hidden (or hard to notice) interfaces, that allow me to see more detail without losing the big picture, that don’t have me bouncing from page to page (i.e. I have an anchor).
OMG the Talk.TiddlyWiki editor sucks. I do not suffer well lack of a WYSIWYG editor. I only accept that in TiddlyWiki when intertwingularity must yield to my slicing and dicing will.
