Contact:cdent@burningchrome.com
Dillon, A. (1996). Myths, misconceptions, and an alternative
perspective on information usage and the electronic medium. In
J.-F. Rouet et al. (Eds.) _Hypertext and cognition_ (p. 25-42).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Below is taken from email message sent to E. Jacob in late April of
2001. It's part of a case of "here read this and tell me what you
think." The version below is slightly edited for errors.
-=-=-
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 23:22:41 -0500 (EST)
From: cdent@burningchrome.com
To: ejacob@indiana.edu
Subject: Dillon's Myths, Misconceptions
While I haven't yet had time to read the Hypermedia as Educational
Technology article (I have to prepare for my 505 presenation tomorrow)
I did make a quick run through the Myths and Misconceptions article.
I'll take a stab at having a position and some comments. My thoughts
aren't fully formed at this point--my exposure to the literature thus
far is fairly limited. I'll say the following with the caveat that by
tomorrow I may have completely changed my mind.
I think Dillon and I reach similar conclusions by different paths. In
the end he implies hypertext could be a valuable tool but it must be
remembered that it is in fact a tool and its effectiveness is
measurable and should be measured and adjusted in an iterative
analytic process.
That's fine. I can agree with that.
I think, though, that his presentation of the myths is a response to
the hype of hypertext instead of the real experience. While he does
mention hypertext's ability to provide and organize context later in
the paper, his foremost gripe appears to be with the belief that
non-linear access is a good thing and that hypertext somehow
transcends the constraints created by paper (creating a universe of
glorious learning?).
I would put the focus elsewhere:
Hypertext as it is generally implemented, in the hands of experienced
users, can do a good job of helping people to find, manage or create
context during their learning task. I think many, perhaps even most,
users are not what I would called experienced and therefore do not or
cannot perform this context discovery task. I agree with Engelbart
when he says that in order for us to take advantage of new
technological systems there has to be a corresponding growth in human
systems: how humans interact with technology. See:
http://www.bootstrap.org/augdocs/augment-81010.htm#5
To me, placing information in context is how we generate the frames which
allow us to categorize and eventually understand. If we want to know
more, we have to gain "knowing" by an iterative process. That process
can be helped if we have access to more context during our knowing.
Systems like Xanadu are so shiny-happy because they make the process
of creating and discovering context a built-in to the design. Of
course, do we see Xanadu lying around nearby? No. It's a pretty picture
that's very hard to draw.
Given that, I think "a framework for the evaluation of hypertext
applications" that "emphasizes usability as the major test" is somewhat
premature because hypertext, as a real, unconstrained beast set loose in
an explicitly public setting, has yet to see the light of day.
In Myth 1 Dillon appears to place the power of associative linking into
the hands of the author. True, the author is granted that power, but
that power is far greater in the hands of the reader and the readers
that come after the first one. The evaluation which the readers make
of the original text add value to it. See the discussion of knowledge in
evolution in the first page of Drexler's "Hypertext Publishing and the
Evolution of Knowledge" at:
http://www.foresight.org/WebEnhance/HPEK0.html
See especially the concepts of enhanced expression, transmission and
evaluation and how they can impact the creation of knowledge.
I can't really dispute Myth 2 as all that says is that paper isn't
actually as constraining as some hypertext chearleaders might want you
to think. Agreed.
At the end of that section there's a lot of talk about typical or
beginning readers and how hypertext might benefit them. I make myself
a little uncomfortable when I think: enough with this focus on the
common denominators.
Myth 3 addresses, to some extent, my feelings about context and I suspect
I'm being hit on the head by "This concern with vast information sources
over real human needs betrays the technocentric values of its proponents
even while they talk in user-centered terms." Except that I'm not
really all that concerned with the generic user-centered notion. I want a
document that expects something of me. I want it to be good enough that
high barriers to understanding are worth climbing. I like Faulkner. I
like Joyce. I want massive mountains of context because I can pick and
choose as I like.
Interestingly, a footnote to Myth 3 is the Maastricht phenomenon
wherein people who claim to read the newspaper are unaware of a topic
for which more than 9 million words were written. In my mind the
absolute topmost goal of network information resources are to free me
from having to remember things like Maastricht. If I have quick,
associative access to that information stored elsewhere, why should I
remember it? I can think other things instead. I, for example, yearn
to have the entire contents of the OED available to me, all the time,
anywhere. I think in words that I don't know. That's problematic.
I can't fight Myth 4. Nothing will solve all current problems. I do
not believe that technology will solve problems. Technology can
_maybe_ help _some_ people solve _some_ problems.
In the conclusions there's little to disagree with. "Our understanding
of learning needs to develop on the basis of our experimental work and
theoretical developments at the human rather than machine level." It's
poor form but I'll say it: Well, duh.
I think many hypertext cheerleaders get a bum rap because they see
themselves in a position where they need to convince an established
structure to make a change of religion. Unfortunately I think they
overstate the case; by several miles. We do live in a time where the
medium, to some extent, is still about the medium. People feel obliged
in some fashion to talk about hypertext when they talk about hypertext
instead of the things you can build with it. It's like talking about
hammers when you should be talking about houses.
My feeling is that hypertext can be (and is, and will be) a valuable
tool that provides another pathway by which some people, who are
inclined in that direction, will be able to enhance their knowledge
acquisition. I suspect that my own feelings on the matter are as
strong as they are because it does work for me: it suits my style. I
read more secondary information since gaining access to network
resources than I ever did before. Those secondary sources provide me
with a greater understanding of many things: my classwork, world
events, problems I am trying to solve in a professional setting. I am
able to synthesize available information in a way that, to me, is more
accurate and empowering.
Am I a liberated reader because of hypertext? No. Am I free from
contraints? No, certainly not. Am I participating in an information
revolution. Sure, but it is nothing new. The information revolution
has been in progress since the first day one human spoke to another
and exchanged some advice. To call hypertext not revolutionary is to
undervalue the power of human interaction, in any form.
(Well, that certainly went on much longer than I intended.)
Back to the Index