I'll try to make these
comments convergent by proposing text where I think changes
should be made.
[By the way -- I think if we're ever going to converge on this document we
need to have a way to verify that our comments and suggestions have been
1) considered (by the group and by Paul), and 2) either been agreed-upon and
included, or rejected. We must all be getting pretty tired of sending off
long lists of comments and snippets of text which seem to get lost in further
correspondence. Any suggestions?]
On web.html --
I think we should say WHY we don't explore the advanced
computing axis. I propose adding the following text at the
end of the third paragraph
"Although there are wonderful examples of technology
advancing along this dimension, we do not focus on them in
this report, because they are generally rather field
specific. Different new technologies will attract the
attention and imagination of different disciplines. We do
not see how a universal appraisal of advanced computing
technologies would help MIT decide how to pursue its
educational mission. These are questions which will be
answered within our schools or departments. On the other
hand, there seems to be universal agreement that
connectivity itself, as a vehicle for advanced computing
and information transfer, will have a major impact on all
areas of education."
On new.html --
I think we should gather together the "dark side of the
web" comments under a separate heading. In the new draft,
Paul has added a sentence here or there referrring to
possible downsides, but they do not have much impact. Also,
some of Paul's negative comments refer to technical problems
like speed, which are not inherent in the idea of hyperlinked
network communication. I'd prefer to keep the deeper
problems together under one heading. So I
propose to 1) eliminate the sentences added here and there;
2) add the following heading and text after the heading
"Interactivity"
<P> <STRONG>The Dark Side of the Web</STRONG>.
It is important to keep in mind that the Web is a rather new
tool that may have flaws and limitations which will only
become apparent as it matures. Anyone who has
browsed the Web can identify troubling features which may
evenually limit its success. Some of the more significant
are: a) Hypertext in an unbounded environment seems to many
people to be distracting. It is easy to follow links away
from one's main subject off onto tangents. It is not clear
that the medium can support concentration and analysis in the
same fashion as, for example, a conventional textbook; b)
Web documents are often poorly structured, hyperlinks abound,
but they are rarely prioritized. The guidance supplied by
the author of a conventional text with its linear development
is not easy to find on the Web; c) The quality of
information is extremely uneven and hard to verify. While
some sources like the Oxford English Dictionary have an
excellent pedigree, others which appear authoritative may be
little more than junk. Anyone contemplating a major
educational initiative using Web technology will likely have
to confront these or other limitations.
<HR>
On medium.html and long.html --
I assume that Paul is going to rename the section on Long
Range Recommendations and replace it with the combination of
some of Dick Larson's ideas and a list of subjects to keep a
watch on -- as we discussed at last week's meeting.
What's next?
Bob