touch screen books
The name was there; the candidate was wrong. ìHe apologized to me,î Sancho recalls. ìAnd thatís what you canít do with touch-screen technology. You never could have proven to that personís satisfaction that the screen didnít show his name. I like that certainty. The paper ends the discussion.î
New York Times
The tabulation function and the authentication function can be laborously fulfilled by a paper ballot. Allocating tabulation exclusively to computers and authentication exclusively to paper is another option. What has not worked is exclusive electronic authentication, although electronic assisted authentication of paper is an option.
“The scheme is low-tech. Paper ballots would be tallied by optical scanners or even by hand. The results would be then posted on a Web site. Using a serial number assigned to each ballot, voters could check the site to make sure that their random ballots were posted and had not been altered or misread.”
New York Times
Perhaps the same dynamic, tabulation vs. authentication, is present in the functionality of library collections. There is no shorter description of the conundrum of computer assisted meaning than “touch screen”. Watch this distracted reading:
touch screen book
collections 2.0
Advocates for library collections were once concerned with physical holdings. That is not as likely now as a
new blog indicates. Attention at ALA Mid-winter will also focus on screen delivery. Is FotB just a marginalized, burned-out hippie to advocate for a continuing role of physical collections in the context of digital delivery? We are going to Philadelphia to find out.
sustainable networked screen book
” is constantly revised, but never needs to be reprinted (or repurchased); one that is lean and simple and doesn’t require a small server farm or a special device; one that makes an enormous impact, but leaves a teeny tiny carbon footprint; one we can live with for ever and ever without getting bored or satiated.”
Kim White
The sustainable networked screen book doesn’t inevitably distinguish itself in comparison with the paper book. This is because contrasting functionalities of the paper and screen book mirror each other while their compatibilities overwhelm their differences. As such it is curious that screen reading advocates always pose one as revolutionary and another as regressive.
Reflect that a fixed reference of printed text, identified author and acknowledged edition are not in themselves inferior qualities. And at FotB we contend that conveying conceptual works in physical objects is a comprehension strategy and that physical books are enhanced by new relations with on-line bibliographic utilities. As for carbon and energy unit costing, the evaluation crosses so may layers of life cycle definition, technological reliance, social benefit, efficiencies of comprehension and cultural transmission method that it is probably a comparison that can be made to support either screen or paper delivery.