comments on 3/20 draft, part I

Gregory A Jackson (gjackson@mit.EDU)
Tue, 21 Mar 95 10:29:04 -500

These will come roughly in order, and perhaps be interrupted since I'm
doing this amidst sessions at a conference in Washington (which
demonstrates to me how important dowloadability of the report -- even in
html -- is).

web.html

"Web pages can be written...": Servers increasingly are Macs and Wintel
machines; UNIX ones are typical for heavily loaded servers, but
certainly don't corner the market any more. It's an important point,
because basically it's very easy to set up and manage one's own server,
such as mine on <whodunit.mit.edu>.

new.html

"Of these .. This objective has been only marginally fulfilled, even
though Athena has provided computer and communications facilities that
have come to define in many ways what the MIT community is": Well, I
guess I just don't agree with the first part of the sentence. If Project
Athena worked the kind of redefinition the last part suggests, then it
certainly isn't marginal. Certainly the effects weren't what PA's
founders expected (they were betting on homegrown courseware), but PA
has had a wider influence on MIT education than almost anything else I
can think about *except* photocopiers, and one level of abstraction up
its central proposition -- that networked computers would redefine the
environment for education, and therefore, eventually, its pedagogy --
seems largely on track. Jumping right down the practical: how about
substituting "partially fulfilled so far" for "marginally fulfilled"?

"...800 of them have asked that their own personal home pages be
included in the list maintained by SIPB": Actually there are over 1000
names on the SIPB list, and a similar and largely overlapping number on
the IS-maintained automatic list. It would be nice if there were also a
link to the centrally-maintained list here, since in due course a
central facility will replace both current lists. The URL is
"http://web.mit.edu/afs/net/admin/www/homes/top.html"

future.html

"Hardware": I think we need to comment in this section on battery
technology, which already is limits what is possible and will do so more
over the next few years. Few expect dramatic breakthroughs here, yet
they're critical. Closely related, of course, is wiring seats throughout
MIT classrooms with power. And wireless networking is closer than "the
next few years"; we're near final agreement on a test to begin within a
few months.

"Software": We're in for some problems in this area, yet the report
ignores them. The key problem is that several different groups are
working on and deploying initial testbeds for of the "next generation"
of HTTP (the protocol that underlies the Web), and as these diverge
(which they've already begun to do) the seamless communication between
servers and browsers begins to break down. As one trivial example, look
at the centering of text. The current HTTP doesn't specify tags to do
this, but the Netscape people and the Arena people both have -- except
they've specified different tags, so documents that center using one
group's proposal don't display centered on browsers built on the
other's. Divergences like this will proliferate, especially with regard
to tables and special formatting, and the result will be something akin
to the mess surrounding "extended Hayes" modem protocols. It's worth our
mentioning this, lest we appear to view the Web through rose-colored
glasses.

uses.html

"MIT Approach": I'm delighted to see Suzana mentioned. It bothers me a
little, however, that IS, which found and targeted the resources to hire
and support Suzana, isn't. We're quick to praise all kinds of
organizations, but when IS is involved, it gets no credit. Of course
this comment is self-serving and provincial, but I think it's important
that we not suggest the kinds of change we are proposing can take place
without some central organization and support. SIPB and academic
departments just aren't enough.

mit.html

"We have not been successful so far in incorporating new technologies
into our mainstream teaching": Again, I don't agree. Well over 300
subjects use comptuer and network technology to one degree or another,
including a substantial fraction of the core and introductory required
subjects in most large majors. I can't think of anything else beyond (1)
faculty and TAs and (2) photocopied handouts and (3) classrooms that is
more pervasive. I bet, in fact, that there are more subjects that use
computer and network technology than there are subjects that use labs
and shops. Finally, I believe that we are the most successful
traditional institution in the world at integrating computer and network
technology into instruction -- which may not be saying much, but
certainly isn't saying that "we have not been successsful".

(more to come)