TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Always Bet on Text (2014)

570 pointsby asyrafqlover 4 years ago

81 comments

aftbitover 4 years ago
As usual, context matters. If you&#x27;re trying to convey complex thoughts about abstract matters, then language is the way to do it. If you are trying to convey deep emotional states, then a photo or video is probably better. You cannot convert the 1st amendment into photos, and you cannot convert the Mona Lisa smile into words.<p>Just try to use words to describe either of these photos and see how they fall short:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;img.buzzfeed.com&#x2F;buzzfeed-static&#x2F;static&#x2F;2015-10&#x2F;19&#x2F;16&#x2F;enhanced&#x2F;webdr02&#x2F;original-24710-1445285133-9.jpg?downsize=600:*&amp;output-format=auto&amp;output-quality=auto" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;img.buzzfeed.com&#x2F;buzzfeed-static&#x2F;static&#x2F;2015-10&#x2F;19&#x2F;1...</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;img.buzzfeed.com&#x2F;buzzfeed-static&#x2F;static&#x2F;2015-10&#x2F;19&#x2F;17&#x2F;enhanced&#x2F;webdr14&#x2F;original-11949-1445288724-16.jpg?downsize=600:*&amp;output-format=auto&amp;output-quality=auto" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;img.buzzfeed.com&#x2F;buzzfeed-static&#x2F;static&#x2F;2015-10&#x2F;19&#x2F;1...</a><p>Between recorded voice and written text, I personally prefer written language. I like the ability to consume at my own pace, go back and re-read tricky bits, and easily search or quote. Plus it&#x27;s much easier to use TTS to convert text to speech than the other way around (at the moment). Maybe someday technology will remove this boundary but currently that&#x27;s my stance.
评论 #26169477 未加载
评论 #26171731 未加载
评论 #26170642 未加载
评论 #26176056 未加载
robenkleeneover 4 years ago
The question is whether these advantages are because text is a better communication medium, or because of the limitations of our technology?<p>Take using a computer to type a word versus draw a picture: Effectively everyone who uses a computer can type a word, but I&#x27;d bet less than 10% could draw a circle.<p>But put a piece of paper in front of someone and effectively everyone can draw a circle.<p>This points to there being a limitation in the technology for working with other forms of media, not the effectiveness of the communication medium itself.<p>This isn&#x27;t to say that text isn&#x27;t also a better communication medium, but it is to say, until the technology has improved for communicating with other media, it&#x27;s difficult to compare without basing the decision on the limitations of the technology.<p>In other words, most of the perceived advantages of text are really advantages of text being easier to represent digitally (or generally reproduced, e.g., printing press), not advantages of text as a communication medium itself.
评论 #26166058 未加载
评论 #26165534 未加载
评论 #26173573 未加载
评论 #26172404 未加载
评论 #26187640 未加载
评论 #26165797 未加载
montebicycleloover 4 years ago
&gt; text is the most powerful, useful, effective communication technology ever, period.<p>On the other hand, many (technical&#x2F;mathematical) concepts are more effectively explained using diagrams&#x2F;images.<p>E.g. the very visual approach taken in Mathologer videos [1] makes difficult, esoteric, mathematical ideas accessible to a wider audience.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=iJ8pnCO0nTY" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=iJ8pnCO0nTY</a>
评论 #26164988 未加载
评论 #26165349 未加载
评论 #26172119 未加载
mihaalyover 4 years ago
Text is not the oldest - nor easiest to use -, text is a heavy abstraction born somewhat recently in human history.<p>The oldest and easiest is the visual in 3D, then comes the visual in 2D.<p>Those exist since we have eyes.<p>Our brain have dedicated and sizeable infrastructure for that. Children can communicate in 3D (gestures, posture, expressions, objects) and in 2D drawings before learning textural communication with great effort.<p>Text is more regular and reliable in certain contexts (not always, sometimes a pictogram or others are better), when the circumstances are proper for that.<p>Text has its uses, just like all the other forms, not being paramount, not at all!<p>(I&#x27;d also argue about that we could read old texts. Sometimes yes, but sometimes we cannot read present ones neither if the cultural and knowledge background is inadequate. Which is just aggravated by the ages)
评论 #26165588 未加载
评论 #26165245 未加载
评论 #26165240 未加载
评论 #26165824 未加载
评论 #26165424 未加载
hrishiover 4 years ago
Agreed, with a counterpoint:<p>Text is efficient at transmitting data. If I want to describe a concept or an event, text is king.<p>However, media is more efficient at transmitting sentiment. It will take you far more than 4000 bytes of text to transmit the feeling or emotion an icon can convey, when used well. This is why we&#x27;ve (as a species) started using emojis, and why media leans to emotion and sentiment while text leans to data.<p>This is an exaggeration, life is almost always a grey area - but I hope you get my point.
评论 #26164531 未加载
评论 #26165532 未加载
评论 #26167364 未加载
评论 #26167437 未加载
评论 #26165031 未加载
cycomanicover 4 years ago
I think the post conflates several quite unrelated concepts under the label text. Also what does he mean by text and information? For example he mentioned the &quot;optical telegraph&quot;, which is a semaphore system which used a system of messages which AFAIK were not alphabetic text.<p>Another example if we compare logographic language systems (e.g. Chinese characters, hieroglyphs ...) to alphabetic systems. I guess we can say both are text, but logographic systems are close to pictures as well (pictographic systems even more so) and they can convey information in much less characters, at the cost that one needs to know a much larger &quot;alphabet&quot;.<p>Similarly if the information we are trying to transmit is actually an image, transmitting the actual image is certainly much less information than transmitting a description of the image. That is also why the comparison with the bird and twitter image falls flat. The image conveys a specific image, not the generic image of a bird. To describe that specific would need many more characters than 4. Similarly if I have a large set of numbers, it&#x27;s much more efficient to store and transmit in binary format not as text.
评论 #26165175 未加载
评论 #26165103 未加载
评论 #26165464 未加载
bmitcover 4 years ago
Why are people so afraid of moving forward?<p>Imagine saying “always bet on punch cards”. Look at any whiteboard in any company or school. It’s filled with text <i>and</i> diagrams. Then watch how someone interacts with a PowerPoint or whiteboard. There is animation and dimensional extension. The way people think and organize and communicate thoughts is multifaceted and multidimensional. It only makes sense that we should be able to work and program in the same way.
评论 #26165503 未加载
评论 #26165254 未加载
tetekover 4 years ago
The first comment is interesting:<p>&quot;Send me a link to a news story that turns out to be a video, or an audio file, and I’ll close it unconsumed: I haven’t got that kind of time. Send me a transcript: I’ll finish reading in half the time it would take me to passively sit there while it played, and I’ll more clearly remember it.&quot;<p>The author is ok with sitting and staring at the article because it&#x27;s faster. What he misses is that it forces you to actually be in a position &#x2F; context where you can read from the screen.<p>Personally I have been giving a lot of though about balancing how I consume content. Text vs audio. Walking &#x2F; exercising or whatever instead of reading.<p>I don&#x27;t believe we should optimise on &quot;time to consume&quot; but rather &quot;healthiness of consume&quot;.
评论 #26168756 未加载
评论 #26169580 未加载
VoodooJuJuover 4 years ago
The gist of what he&#x27;s saying is pretty sound, but he should have gone deeper. For a deeper argument on the importance of &quot;text&quot;, the written word, exposition - I recommend reading Postman&#x27;s <i>Amusing Ourselves to Death</i>.<p>People here are suggesting that images&#x2F;video are superior, but there&#x27;s the cliche, &quot;a picture is worth a thousand words&quot;. Well, which thousand words? Do they convey the same thousand words to you as they do to me?<p>Words leave nothing to the imagination. This is one of the most important traits of good exposition. Its arguments&#x2F;messages are out there, free of the primate dominance gestures, the biases, the emotional stimulants, waiting to be vetted for their logical soundness.
评论 #26166485 未加载
评论 #26166281 未加载
评论 #26180418 未加载
评论 #26166789 未加载
评论 #26172546 未加载
chordalkeyboardover 4 years ago
&gt; Text is the most efficient communication technology. By orders of magnitude. This blog post is likely to take perhaps 5000 bytes of storage, and could compress down to maybe 2000; by comparison the following 20-pixel-square image of the silhouette of a tweeting bird takes 4000 bytes: &lt;twitter logo&gt;<p>Author is really excited about really old information technology. He makes some good points.
评论 #26164393 未加载
评论 #26164288 未加载
soapdogover 4 years ago
It really depends on what you define as text. Does it involve special notations such as math? Can it involve diagrams?<p>If all you mean is prose, as writing sentences in whatever native language you speak, then I must respectfully disagree with the OP.<p>Yes, text is marvelous. I&#x27;m an author of multiple books and have a passion for the written word, but there are things for which there are better ways to convey information.<p>A simple example is electronics. A circuit diagram is not text. It is a graphical representation using a standard notation. It is much easier to understand than spending paragraphs describing which component should connect to which other component.<p>Unless you decide that &quot;text&quot; should include such special representations. Then the question becomes: where do you draw the line between what you consider text and what is no longer text. In an isometric exploded view of some mechanical device text? Are architecture plans text? Because all those representations are better than the written word to convey their meaning...
评论 #26167025 未加载
评论 #26167739 未加载
评论 #26178204 未加载
virgilpover 4 years ago
I would like to add that text, as a thousand-years-old-technology, has always included illustration too. Even in recent&#x2F;digital text, you have this bird that doesn&#x27;t take 4k bytes: [edit: unfortunately hackernews doesn&#x27;t display the unicode character U+1F426]<p>Text is very powerful, but it doesn&#x27;t need to always work by itself (arguably works best together with other media)
评论 #26164814 未加载
评论 #26164497 未加载
评论 #26165696 未加载
numlock86over 4 years ago
Apples and oranges. The post states that the used Twitter logo PNG is 4000 bytes, while it&#x27;s only 723. Try to express that logo in text, English language and in all its details with 723 characters, so you are able to reproduce a pixel perfect representation. Not even possible with 4000 characters anyway. Don&#x27;t bother. Text will be ambiguous, unless you describe every single detail. If the target is to communicate &quot;Twitter logo&quot; then sure, just write that. But if you compare 723 bytes of &quot;data&quot; with just a few specific information pieces contained within that data ... sure, text might be better.<p>&gt; text is the most powerful, useful, effective communication technology ever, period.<p>Nothing of this is actually true, period.<p>&gt; I do not post to this blog with the intention of entertaining Hacker News Debate Club and I frequently disable comments or friend-lock posts in order to avoid this sort of nonsense. I&#x27;m not interested in further discussion.<p>Ah yes, the true seal of quality. (sarcasm)
评论 #26165945 未加载
评论 #26166852 未加载
评论 #26166176 未加载
评论 #26166539 未加载
评论 #26168047 未加载
评论 #26165792 未加载
评论 #26167625 未加载
评论 #26166648 未加载
评论 #26165887 未加载
评论 #26167887 未加载
janeeover 4 years ago
I see text as read optimized, but write expensive and not well suited or efficient for lots of scenarios:<p>- wood working, absolutely horrible to work from text, which I&#x27;ve done.<p>- group ideation, as much as I love IM&#x27;ing, audio + diagrams personally feels like a more effective way of communication.<p>- troubleshooting, too many times I&#x27;ve had to text my parents how to troubleshoot their router only to end up calling them and slowly talking them through it.<p>These are super specific, but I&#x27;d still wager audio and video trump text in a significant number of general scenarios that require communication of some kind.<p>Anything that needs read optimization i.e. this is information that needs to be communicated over and over, text is better. But often that&#x27;s not a requirement.
评论 #26165654 未加载
sn41over 4 years ago
The article is historically wrong. The oldest known cave murals etc. are 44000 years old [1], while cuneiform, heiroglyphics, Sumerian, Mesopotamian etc. are only about 3000-4000 years old [2]. A strange beautiful example of complex information presented visually which was in use until recently, are the Polynesian navigation charts [3]. Our primary method of communcation is probably visual and&#x2F;or auditory.<p>The prominence and seeming economy of text in digital communications is probably because data is presented and transmitted as a one dimensional sequence of bits.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Cave_painting" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Cave_painting</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;History_of_writing#Cuneiform_script" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;History_of_writing#Cuneiform_s...</a><p>[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.khanacademy.org&#x2F;humanities&#x2F;ap-art-history&#x2F;pacific-apah&#x2F;micronesia-apah&#x2F;a&#x2F;navigation-charts" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.khanacademy.org&#x2F;humanities&#x2F;ap-art-history&#x2F;pacifi...</a>
评论 #26167168 未加载
KMagover 4 years ago
Side note: the author is Graydon Hoare, creator of the Rust programming language.
评论 #26164516 未加载
leephillipsover 4 years ago
The author may have overstated his case, but I hope the designers of GUI applications are listening: most of the icons on your menu bars mean nothing to me, so your application is hard to use. Substitute words.
评论 #26166545 未加载
kstenerudover 4 years ago
Yes, there&#x27;s a reason why the command line and shells are still a thing. Text supports a wider range of expression than any other medium we&#x27;ve developed thus far (and not for lack of trying!). Even Steve Jobs in his never-ending quest for UX minimalism couldn&#x27;t eradicate the keyboard from the iPhone, despite all their UI innovations.<p>Text is also why XML, JSON, and Markdown are a thing.<p>When you can accomplish your tasks within a constrained range of expressivity, you do that (gas &amp; break pedals, steering wheel, door handles, etc). But when you need greater expressivity, you&#x27;re probably going to need text.
zelphirkaltover 4 years ago
And somewhere in that discussion, I hear a faint echo of &quot;org-mode&quot; being whispered : ) Jokes aside, I often notice, how I am more productive, when relying on plain text, than relying on &quot;enterprise&quot; wiki systems, which make it impossible to export to any useful further processable format (looking at you, Confluence). One of my favorite features is, that it is easy to put text under version control, so that diffs have a recognizable meaning.
评论 #26170276 未加载
评论 #26209657 未加载
asahover 4 years ago
Text has the benefit of extensibility and loose datatyping - you can encode all sorts of stuff as text, and with a bit of care, extend the &quot;protocol&quot; (human or machine) in such a way that receivers (current or future) can decode it (with a high degree of precision), even if you hadn&#x27;t previously agreed on the protocol.<p>You can of course do this with multimedia or any other encoding, but text is pretty great at on-the-fly extensibility.
InternetPersonover 4 years ago
This is an important debate! Only one form of communication can be declared &quot;the most powerful, useful, effective communication technology ever!!&quot;
dalbasalover 4 years ago
Case in point: text messaging. Quoting the Spolsky (&#x27;Not Just Usability&#x27;, 2004) speaking about &quot;social user interfaces.&quot;<p><i>Many humans are less inhibited when they’re typing than when they are speaking face-to-face. Teenagers are less shy. With cellphone text messages, they’re more likely to ask each other out on dates. That genre of software was so successful socially that it’s radically improving millions of people’s love lives (or at least their social calendars). Even though text messaging has a ghastly user interface, it became extremely popular with the kids. The joke of it is that there’s a much better user interface built into every cellphone for human to human communication: this clever thing called “phone calls.”</i><p>It&#x27;s not just dates. It&#x27;s &quot;How ru?&quot; &amp; &quot;running 3m late&quot; and such. This has advanced to where text messaging is now a distinct written dialect, unintelligible to someone from 1993. Meanwhile, voice messages and such are more peripheral... even though they now work through the same UIs and we all have earpieces in our ears anyway. Text <i>is</i> powerful.<p>That said, text is not always the most powerful media. Photos&#x2F;selfies and such have become a major 1-to-1 communication medium too. I often find that a phone conversation way more efficient than an email chain.<p>I also think there are categories of writing that shouldn&#x27;t be. &quot;Number articles&quot; where an article is describing a company&#x27;s financial&#x27;s, for example. A lot of newspapers try to describe a table in essay form. The table would be better. That is still text though, in the sense that this article uses the term.<p>Choosing the most powerful medium or submedium is crucially important.
评论 #26165373 未加载
dgudkovover 4 years ago
&gt;Text is the oldest and most stable communication technology.<p>I disagree. Drawing pictures is the oldest communication technology. Pictures evolved into text eventually. Characters in early texts frequently are just small pictures. Understanding pictures is easier than understanding text because of smaller cognitive load.<p>Text helps with 2 things: condensing information and manipulating abstractions that don&#x27;t have an unambiguous visual representation (such as hope or price). But it comes at the price of needing to learn the alphabet and dictionary and apply them to mentally decode what is otherwise just a cryptic drawing.<p>Text may be more efficient in some cases, but say it&#x27;s better universally is moot. For instance, texts are very bad for representing non-linear, concurrent workflows. Pictures are way more better in this case.<p>&gt;Text is the most efficient communication technology.<p>It heavily depends on <i>what</i> you&#x27;re going to communicate. For a blog post, text may be better. In other cases, a picture may be worth a thousand of words.<p>The article may have good points, but it&#x27;s full of poor statements.
msiyerover 4 years ago
If we agree that a picture is worth 1000 words, then...<p>Given the current state of information technology, I agree that we are most efficient at processing text. However, that can change pretty quickly. Storage mechanisms similar to DNA can make the difference between text and multimedia irrelevant. It will happen because nature already does that.
评论 #26165066 未加载
评论 #26164957 未加载
keiferskiover 4 years ago
Photography is about 200 years old. Film (moving images) is about 100 years old. The ability to easy create video is about 20 years old.<p>Compare all of that to text, which is at least thousands of years old. And then compare text to speech, which is hundreds of thousands of years old. Had a way to record and replay audio been developed before writing, it’s likely that you’d be listening to this comment right now, not reading it.<p>I’d say we’re at the extreme beginning of a highly audiovisual age. A millennium or two from now, writing “dead” words might seem as ancient to our descendants as foot messengers appear to us: useful for particular purposes but mostly irrelevant.<p>On a related note, the concept of logocentrism seems relevant here:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Logocentrism" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Logocentrism</a>
jameshartover 4 years ago
This article annoys me whenever it reappears because it just isn’t clear on what it means by ‘text’.<p>Sometimes it seems to mean ‘the English language’ or ‘language’ more broadly. Other times it seems to mean ‘strings of ASCII encoded Latin letters’. Sometimes it seems to mean ‘pictures of arrangements of letter like symbols’. In general it just amounts to ‘linear streams of data’.<p>Sure, if you define text that broadly, it covers a lot of things that are great.<p>But it’s a definition that’s so broad it defies its own terms. Text, defined that way, encompasses SVG files. Or even base64 encoded PNG files if you want. So that Twitter logo can be unambiguously shared through ‘text’ too. Look - here’s a tweet-sized version: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;bbcmicrobot&#x2F;status&#x2F;1237867433064464394?s=21" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;bbcmicrobot&#x2F;status&#x2F;1237867433064464394?s...</a><p>But there’s a weird cultural bias built in to the assertion that all those things are ‘just text’. Sure, for someone who uses a US keyboard to type Latin alphabet characters left to right, base64 encoded binary, svg, or BBC BASIC, is ‘just text’. But that’s not exactly a universal perspective.<p>In the limit, this amounts to ‘always bet on data transmission and storage’.<p>A lot of the listed benefits of text are only realizable when the text is coupled with a specific ‘interpreter’ - be that an SVG renderer, a BBC micro, or a human who speaks English.<p>Doing stuff with text with computers is hard! Lexers, parsers and tokenizers are probably the most common sources of security bugs in history. And if the text is natural language, we still don’t have reliable computer tools for dealing with it - understanding or generating.<p>So I just guess I don’t really know what the point of this piece is. Data is all there is. Linear streams of data are often a thing. Because of the history of computing, western language character sets and conventions are often used to capture them in the same format as we use for written language.
mistersysover 4 years ago
I do agree text wins when it comes to expressiveness. However, that expressiveness comes at a cost, just look how difficult it is for beginners to grasp the initial concepts of programming.<p>I&#x27;ve seen some people pick up this medium very quickly, and others struggle for months with little progress. However, almost anyone can pickup Sketch or Illustrator for creating UI prototypes very quickly.<p>The expressiveness of text is not always a strength. It&#x27;s very hard to build programming languages without text, but I strongly believe we still program too much when building UIs. Excel demonstrates that people can quickly pickup a minimal programming language for connecting data to UI, I think an Excel-Sketch hybrid is where the future lies for building applications in particular.
smusamashahover 4 years ago
This discussion right here is all text. Imagine if it was pictures instead. Imagine representing any of the comments in form of a picture. Won&#x27;t be one picture representing a 1000 words. May be the another truth is that &quot;a word is worth a 1000 pictures&quot;.
gfodorover 4 years ago
Concerns about 3D multimedia spaces replacing text makes as much sense as worrying about parchment, paper, or rectangle screens replacing text. Virtualized spaces are, much like those others, merely a transmission medium for text (and other media.) As immersive computing arrives (you may not think it is, but I assure you, it is) we will be refactoring a lot of these existing rectangle screens and other contexts where text is projected via physical processes into virtualized ones.<p>This is why in my 3D virtual space for work, Jel, fully collaborative text panels (synchronized via OT) are the primary kind of element you create: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;jel.app" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;jel.app</a>.
hliyanover 4 years ago
What I took away from this is: using combinations of a limited set of symbols to convey meaning is durable (as society advances or retreats and technology changes). This makes sense because human thinking, for the most part, seems to be symbolic (i.e. using a smaller, simpler thing to represent a larger more complex thing). Text is just one such form.<p>Drawings, sculptures, JPG files, videos etc. are more precise and are better at conveying a specific object or event, but not necessarily its meaning.<p>If I remember correctly, Neal Stephenson&#x27;s <i>Anathem</i> deals with some of these themes.
systemvoltageover 4 years ago
The article is making a weird point and the comments here are talking past each other.<p>Author should be conveying the <i>unique</i> aspects of Textual media but also it’s shortcomings. Comments here should be discussing the benefits and shortcomings of all kinds of media.<p>Instead both are discussing which one is better - Text or something else. A lot of it is mutually exclusive. The Tianamen square tank man image is powerful and impossible to encode in text with the same effect, and Nabokov’s prose is impossible to paint a picture of or how we struggle to describe tasting notes.
teucrisover 4 years ago
Text is using a series of efficient pictures to communicate. I liken it to radix-based numbers. I could write 1,749 tallies on a piece of paper, or I could write the base-10 number.<p>I have to learn decimal numbers: my intended audience needs to learn decimal numbers. But the resulting efficacy is a thousandfold. I think of letters and words like digits, but for communicating broader concepts.<p>So when we lack the symbols or combinations to express something, we need a unique picture to do so. Pictures are worth a thousand words, but only when a thousand words won’t suffice.
jameshartover 4 years ago
There’s a real ‘<i>ceci n&#x27;est pas une pipe</i>’ treachery-of-images philosophical trap here, of course.<p>If text’s so darn great, after all, <i>why do you need to draw a picture of it before I can understand it?</i>
joppyover 4 years ago
&gt; “Pictures may be worth a thousand words, when there&#x27;s a picture to match what you&#x27;re trying to say.”<p>The author is saying that because pictures cannot easily capture arbitrary sentences, text is better. But the same applies with the roles reversed: text cannot capture arbitrary pictures! Instead of saying that one is better than the other outright, let’s move to media (for reading, composing, and programming) where the two can be intermingled appropriately, with as little friction as possible. We certainly have the technology for it...
SPBSover 4 years ago
Yes, visual diagrams and shapes are sometimes more efficient. But the main point is that text is the lowest (and cheapest) form of encoding that is still human readable&#x2F;writeable. Text is always there even when other data formats are not feasible. If you can adequately represent your ideas in text, you are giving it the highest chance of being seen and distributed by other humans. You don&#x27;t need special tools or artistic skills to replicate the data, anyone with a pen &amp; paper or keyboard can do it!
dxiaoover 4 years ago
Text and more broadly natural language is actually a stunningly low-bandwidth form of communication. The reason it works so well despite being low-bandwidth is that we humans share an incredible amount of shared experience and common knowledge, and so the limited amount of information in text can refer to a much wider set of knowledge and assumptions and our brains are able to make inferences and use context in a remarkable way to fill in the blanks.<p>To take an analogy, think of writing text as analogous to compressing data using a Huffman code. Our ideas correspond to the initial uncompressed data, natural language text corresponds to compressions of those source data, while our brains correspond to the Huffman tree that tells you how to decompress. With our brains&#x2F;context we can recover the initial ideas, just like with the Huffman tree we can recover the uncompressed data. Without the Huffman tree, the compressed data are gibberish.<p>On the one hand this means that text is really powerful as the author says; we can store an incredible amount of information in a small amount space, and can reconstruct the source idea the text represents efficiently (if with some amount of ambiguity and error).<p>On the other hand text is very far from universal. Anyone who sees the Twitter logo sees the exact same thing (interpreting it as a bird, of course, requires the prior knowledge of what a bird is and looks like). However, anyone who sees a piece of text not only needs to understand the language it&#x27;s written in, but also all of the ideas that it refers to. That&#x27;s why we still have many examples of languages and texts that are undecipherable: we&#x27;ve lost the context they were originally written in. Even Egyptian hieroglyphics were undecipherable until the 1800s when people used the Rosetta stone to provide context to decipher it.<p>Text has further issues as well, chief among them its ambiguity. Not only is it easy to under-specify things in text, but it&#x27;s also possible for the same piece of text to mean different things at different times and places.<p>As a culture these issues may be strengths; poetry and literature derive strength from this openness to interpretation, and many would argue so does law where statutes written centuries ago can be adapted to our time. But from a purely data storage and transmission perspective, these are clear weaknesses.
cjohnson318over 4 years ago
I think the one weakness of text is context. In 2,000 years, if someone finds an inscription reading &quot;Thanks Obama&quot;, what will they make of it? They&#x27;ll might know that Obama was a president of a country. Without context it would be hard to tell if this was 1) genuine sentiment 2) snarky criticism or 3) ironic. Good luck with &quot;Covefe&quot; or whatever.<p>My point is that context matters a lot, and (I assume) that it can only be reconstructed through a lot of text.
mdonahoeover 4 years ago
I’m so glad this post is still around. I cite it a lot when discussing creative tools with people who think that visual is the only way to go.<p>Obviously the best computer tools offer both visual and textual ways of working. But if you have to pick one, bet on text.<p>I was about to add a caveat about pure visual tasks, like image composition, but advances like DALL-E are starting to put those tasks into question as well. If I were making a photo editor today, I would bet on text.
submetaover 4 years ago
I love Emacs and plain text. But claiming that text is everything is ignoring the power of images. The brain can immediately grasp the meaning of an image, visuals are immediately understood, some of the most remarkable things human beings have created is art, that is visual imagery.<p>Just because our current technology is best able to handle and deal with text says nothing about the power of sound, images, sketches, drawings and handwritten notes.
dkerstenover 4 years ago
He uses a mathematical formula as an example of text, with its symbols and whatnot. I don&#x27;t count that as &quot;text&quot;, to me, its closer to a UML diagram or flowchart than it is to the text I&#x27;m using to write this comment. If you just conflate <i>&quot;all things represented through glyphs and symbols&quot;</i>, then I find that too broad to be useful.
l0b0over 4 years ago
This looks like a specialization of Tim Berners-Lee&#x27;s Rule of Least Power[1]:<p><pre><code> &gt; suggests choosing the least powerful [computer] language suitable for a given purpose </code></pre> <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Rule_of_least_power" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Rule_of_least_power</a>
fouricover 4 years ago
The author seems to be arguing that &quot;most general&quot; = &quot;best&quot; - because text is the most general communication format, it&#x27;s the best.<p>This argument is pretty trivially false.<p>By this logic, the best programming language is assembly, because it&#x27;s the most general. Actually, writing opcodes directly might be more general, in case your assembler doesn&#x27;t have translations for some undocumented opcodes. The best editor would be a hex editor. The best web browser would be netcat piped into a hex editor, as well. The best OS would be no OS at all (because OSes impose restrictions in order to make programming easier and safer). The best application, for any kind of application, would be an interpreter that would allow you to create your own, however you wanted.<p>Engineering is necessarily a tradeoff between generality and efficiency. Technology is largely used to make things more efficient, and so our tools always impose some constraints on the problem&#x2F;solution space in order to be more efficient than <i>not</i> using that tool.<p>A common design pattern is a specialized fast-path and slower (but more general) fallback.<p>In addition, as many others have stated here: &quot;the right tool for the right job&quot;. Videos, audio, pictures, and interactive tools will always be more efficient for certain problems. If your sole concern is generality, then yes, by all means, use text. However, this will almost never happen; your design space will almost always necessitate a tradeoff of generality with efficiency - in which case, pure plain text is rarely the solution.
评论 #26170399 未加载
ChrisMarshallNYover 4 years ago
It&#x27;s a good post, and he makes excellent points.<p>Like any &quot;hard and fast&quot; rule, however, it tends to go a bit pear-shaped, when viewed from certain contexts.<p>As someone that has made the mistake of designing a &quot;pure&quot; iconic interface, I can tell you that alternatives to text UI can be quite difficult to implement[0].<p>But a well-designed symbolic UX can be leaps and bounds more effective than text.<p><i>In some contexts.</i><p>Basically, YMMV.<p>The main issue with text, is that is assumes that:<p>1) Everybody can read, and<p>B) Everybody is on the same page.<p>In any given day, I notice written signs everywhere. But the really <i>important</i> stuff tends to be done symbolically.<p>Notably, caution&#x2F;danger signs and other warnings.<p>Road signs are almost always text, but the same thing I just mentioned, applies to important cautionary road signs. You can assume that anyone driving can read (written road test), so why use icons?<p>That&#x27;s because we can process symbols much more quickly and effectively than text. A well-designed icon can be instantly recognizable. Take, for example, the classic radiation or biohazard icons.<p>They still need &quot;training&quot; to properly interpret; but nothing like the level of education required to simply read (and understand) the word &quot;BIOHAZARD.&quot;<p><pre><code> ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⡖⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢲⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⣿⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⣇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⡇⠀⢀⣀⣤⣤⣤⣤⣀⡀⠀⢸⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢻⣿⣿⣔⢿⡿⠟⠛⠛⠻⢿⡿⣢⣿⣿⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣤⣶⣾⣿⣿⣿⣷⣤⣀⡀⢀⣀⣤⣾⣿⣿⣿⣷⣶⣤⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢠⣾⣿⡿⠿⠿⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠏⠻⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠿⠿⢿⣿⣷⡀⠀⠀ ⠀⢠⡿⠋⠁⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⠉⠻⣿⠇⠀⠀⠸⣿⡿⠋⢰⣿⡇⠀⠀⠈⠙⢿⡄⠀ ⠀⡿⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣿⣷⡀⠀⠰⣿⣶⣶⣿⡎⠀⢀⣾⣿⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢿⠀ ⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠹⣿⣷⣄⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⣠⣾⣿⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀ ⠀⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠻⢿⢇⣿⣿⣿⣿⡸⣿⠟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠐⢤⣀⣀⢀⣀⣠⣴⣿⣿⠿⠋⠙⠿⣿⣿⣦⣄⣀⠀⠀⣀⡠⠂⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠛⠛⠛⠛⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠛⠛⠛⠛⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ </code></pre> And, of course, the classic skull tends to convey a message that even the uneducated can understand.<p>I have learned the hard way, not to get too creative, when presenting GUI. I&#x27;ve learned to use platform conventions, and ISO symbols[1], where possible; even if I am not that thrilled with the aesthetics.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;littlegreenviper.com&#x2F;miscellany&#x2F;the-road-most-traveled-by&#x2F;#mistakes" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;littlegreenviper.com&#x2F;miscellany&#x2F;the-road-most-travel...</a><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.iso.org&#x2F;obp&#x2F;ui&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.iso.org&#x2F;obp&#x2F;ui&#x2F;</a>
shultaysover 4 years ago
Author says text is the oldest and most stable communication technology but his example is some pictures on rock.
geraldbauerover 4 years ago
FYI: I collect bet on text goodies in the Awesome .TXT &#x2F; Text page [1].<p>Yes, Text, Text, Text - The past, present and future of writing (and publishing).<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;officetxt&#x2F;awesome-txt" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;officetxt&#x2F;awesome-txt</a>
openlowcodeover 4 years ago
It is interesting to think about it in the context of coding.<p>There is a strong opinion (which I share) that text coding is much more efficient than &#x27;graphical&#x27; alternatives due to text flexibility and nice features ( easy compare, universal medium...)
mark_l_watsonover 4 years ago
While agree with the basic premise of the author, I find it amusing that I found the black background and font selection difficult to read. When I switched to reader view, I was experiencing pure text, and it was better for me.
loosetypesover 4 years ago
Context &lt; Subtext &lt; Plaintext<p>Cute, overly self congratulatory turns of word aside, this had me look up the etymology of text. I hadn’t put it together before, but woven is such a fitting root for the fabric of our thoughts made manifest.
eimrineover 4 years ago
So happy to be on a website w&#x2F;o any pictures or videos or bright emojis. To tell the truth I have some problems of communication in messengers where everyone considers cool to send animated sticker instead of words.
ElectricMindover 4 years ago
Actually a single letter is &quot;a picture&quot;. So Text is a collection of small pictures. There is no such thing as &quot;Text&quot;- we give a meaning. Otherwise it is bunch of weird arrows and curves - pictures.
评论 #26164739 未加载
评论 #26166960 未加载
评论 #26164823 未加载
评论 #26164949 未加载
yositoover 4 years ago
Something about hammers and nails and using the right tools for the job
评论 #26168215 未加载
pmarreckover 4 years ago
This sounds great if you are very literate and well-vocabularied.<p>Most people in the world are not. Or don&#x27;t speak English at all, another problem with text that you don&#x27;t find with images.
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYKover 4 years ago
There is a saying &quot;a picture is worth a thousand words&quot;. The brain will recognize a white flurry cat from an image faster than from a phrase &quot;white flurry cat&quot;.
hctawover 4 years ago
&gt; But let&#x27;s hit the random button on wikipedia and pick a sentence, see if you can draw a picture to convey it, mm?<p>To be needlessly pedantic, my computer drew the image that conveyed this to me.<p>Less pedantically text is a medium of exchange for language, and a lossy one just like spoken word. I think there&#x27;s a lot of power in its flexibility due to that lossiness. It&#x27;s also one of its subtle weaknesses - we can <i>read</i> text from 5,000 years ago, but there&#x27;s going to be much debate over <i>understanding</i> the text because of how much context has been lost to time.
beyondCriticsabout 4 years ago
As someone who has produced UML diagrams for a living for some time, this really talks to my soul... Thanks for posting.
naringasover 4 years ago
the phonetic alphabet is a brilliant invention. made by thousands of people over thousands of years.<p>the least studied &#x27;character&#x27; of this alphabet is the most imporant, the most critical character in any phonetic alphabet is the blank space. withoutitphoneticwritingsdoesnotmakesasmuchsesnse.
djhaskin987over 4 years ago
Obligatory reference to the Unix Koan &quot;Master Foo Discourses on the Graphical User Interface&quot;, after reading this post:<p>&gt; Master Foo said nothing, but pointed at the moon. A nearby dog began to bark at the master&#x27;s hand.<p>&gt; “I don&#x27;t understand you!” said the programmer.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.catb.org&#x2F;~esr&#x2F;writings&#x2F;unix-koans&#x2F;gui-programmer.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.catb.org&#x2F;~esr&#x2F;writings&#x2F;unix-koans&#x2F;gui-programmer....</a>
doubletglover 4 years ago
When breathing, always bet on air..
seph-reedover 4 years ago
The day will come when we can <i>think an image</i> and then send it. It might change things.
gverrillaover 4 years ago
&gt; &quot;Human rights are moral principles or norms that describe certain standards of human behaviour, and are regularly protected as legal rights in national and international law.&quot;<p>image: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;imgur.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;8J6yeRe" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;imgur.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;8J6yeRe</a>
评论 #26167054 未加载
评论 #26167811 未加载
kizerover 4 years ago
4000 bytes? That tweeting bird picture really is worth a thousand words ;).
评论 #26166426 未加载
trulymeover 4 years ago
Nitpick:<p>&gt; It can be translated.<p>It <i>needs to</i> be translated. No such issue with photos.
spicyramenover 4 years ago
It depends, memes, short clips are super effective too.
yoz-yover 4 years ago
And yet I can find toilets easily in any country with a simple logo but have to hunt for them if they are spelled out.<p>Images are wonderful if you don&#x27;t live in a bubble where everybody speaks the same language.
karmakazeover 4 years ago
Dumb post. It&#x27;s not a contest. Use whichever is appropriate.<p>I design systems using both diagrams and text sometimes laid out in understood, non-linear patterns. I also enjoy music.
kobieycover 4 years ago
How is neuralink not being discussed here?
jimmyvalmerover 4 years ago
What is that image of Gnus doing there?
jamilaghasiyevover 4 years ago
Ludwigstein cried after reading this
mikeyla85over 4 years ago
A picture is worth, like, 100 words
hit8runover 4 years ago
Yet Instagram is flourishing.
bscphilover 4 years ago
(2014)
OhHiMarkosover 4 years ago
I think text is a powerful mean to express ideas, but pictures are also. And it comes down to how people think: in text or in pictures?<p>I don&#x27;t know much about it, but there in a talk, Jordan Peterson addressed that there are people who can think in text, in pictures or even both. And that trait says a lot about ones character.<p>Interesting stuff
Tepixover 4 years ago
Gopher vs HTTP.<p>One was only text.
derefrover 4 years ago
&gt; assuming we treat speech&#x2F;signing as natural phenomenon -- there are no human societies without it -- whereas textual capability has to be transmitted, taught, acquired<p>I’ve been watching videos of pets (dogs, cats) being “button trained”—being taught to use (primitive, non-syntactic) language by making associations between things&#x2F;acts&#x2F;emotional states and the pressing of one or another audio-playing buttons that has been placed on the floor.<p>It has very much driven home the point for me, that “spoken language” is actually <i>not</i> something inherent and instinctual to humans (or to any species); but rather <i>is</i> a technology. It’s just a technology that’s rather simple to <i>learn</i>, if you have the right underlying hardware acceleration (e.g. a cerebral cortex)—and, crucially, a teacher. For other intelligent mammals, apparently the teacher is the only component they’re missing!<p>Language is a technology that humans in particular find very <i>intuitive</i>—at least at a young age when our brains are malleable—but not one we inherently start with. We absorb it easily <i>if</i> we’re immersed in a society where everybody uses language from birth. But in situations where that’s not true (feral children, some very broken homes) we don’t.<p>In a world where every human being instantly had all entrained structure in their neocortex erased, such that we were “reduced” to being upright hairless apes with the <i>capacity</i> for language but no <i>knowledge</i> of it, I don’t think we’d just instantaneously come up with the idea of language and begin attempting to develop languages to communicate, the way modern people instantly try to develop a creole of the languages they <i>do</i> know, when stuck in a situation with people who share no common language with them.<p>The idea to associate concepts with specific mouth-noises—and to condition others to use those same mouth-noises for the same concepts, to facilitate transmission of thought—might randomly arise in a few people, but it’d need to catch on and spread from there, just like any other technology. It would either need to be observed and copied, or actively taught.<p>And I hypothesize that that is what happened (pre)historically: at some point, there were several memetic “waves” spreading increasingly-technologically-advanced (e.g. syntactic, expressive) forms of language across human populations with brains <i>already</i> structurally amenable to them. Of course, each wave would only be a struggle to the generation that pioneered it; the next generation, being immersed in that new, more-complex language form from birth, would find it similarly intuitive.<p>(This makes me wonder whether we’ve yet hit the “limits of linguistic expressiveness” for our current brain size, such that we’d need to unlimit e.g. average skull diameter at birth to let us get any fancier with language; or whether we’ve still got some, ah, “headroom” left.)
评论 #26169393 未加载
sinenomineover 4 years ago
There is a well known fact in the field of psychometrics: human general intelligence <i>g</i> can be modeled as two relatively independent sub-factors: verbal intelligence and spatial intelligence. Other sub-factors, if any, are way more speculative.<p>As a human being, it is quite possible to have verbal intelligence higher than spatial intelligence, and indeed I know some people with verbal tilt and some other people with spatial tilt. These people tend to think &amp; approach problems differently, while having different strengths and weaknesses. Naturally, similar people cluster together, and some professions (e.g. lawyers, journalists, writers, programmers) are more amenable to verbally tilted persons, while other professions (mechanical engineering, airplane piloting, architecture) are amenable to spatially tilted persons.<p>Looking around via this lens, discerning cognitive styles inherent in design of the human experience is enlightening. One can see that our physical and social, educational environments and governing institutions are designed with one cognitive style in mind at the expense of the other: and this privilege goes to verbal cognitive style.<p>Let me offer a different perspective: to a person with higher spatial and weaker verbal cognition, this environment looks physically simplistic, tasteless, sometimes outright boring, often suffocatingly so. Utilitarian safety &amp; simplicity prevailing over beauty and shape-being, denying the inhabitants possibilities of space meaningful by itself. Letters, words, strings of words are everywhere, starting with high-school where the recent historical trend of increasing verbalization of curriculum continues, and on to adult life where verbally intensive professions pay more and command significantly more power (note how in the aforementioned occupation list the second one contains less status-worthy &amp; more specialized occupations). Limitless possibilities of rendered worlds on megapixel screens collapse into a flat-designed abstract hellscape of recursively composed words and menus. The brain of the child - a pinnacle of neuroplasticity - adapts, as relentless march of critical developmental periods continues, unnecessary white matter pathways wither away, while economically useful ones are potentiated and strengthened for the forthcoming endless competition with similar human beings, similarly shaped. The best and brightest in this game of words become lawyers and career politicians, movers and shakers of our world; but are they truly our best, and do they truly <i>imagine</i> the referents of their symbols ? Are we led by seeing or blind ?<p>Much could be said about benefits of verbal thinking, endless composability (to some, vacuous, denying interesting constrained structure) of syntax &amp; grammar &amp; semantics, and rightly so. Yet one wonders, which avenues of thought, of being, both alone and together as a people, were not taken. How a civlization of prevailing gestalt could look like ? Confronted with this state of affairs, one wonders, if &quot;Always betting on text&quot;, pedal-to-the-metal, more-of-the-same is really going to bring us somewhere at all ?<p>If you, dear reader, have some latent spatial&#x2F;geometrical imagination which was pushed away by economically profitable word manipulation engines that grew through you, maybe you too wonder about this question.
评论 #26166857 未加载
Wolfenstein98kover 4 years ago
Can someone give me a tl;dr?<p>(Just kidding. Fantastic article.)
aaron695over 4 years ago
&gt; We can read texts from five thousand years ago,<p>What&#x27;s interesting is pretty much all file formats are still readable (The media they are stored on is often not)<p>If you have the file it should be readable with a program you can find on Google.<p>On topic, No, although the article might be technically correct the biggest thing holding back many consumer products is lack of ability for non-text.<p>Signal had massive issues for years because it didn&#x27;t have emoji. Now it&#x27;s up with the rest. It&#x27;s so much easier now you can copy a photo from Signal.<p>Like all these apps it needs work, like where&#x27;s my real gun emoji. But they&#x27;ll get there.
4eor0over 4 years ago
This feels like an arbitrary perspective.<p>Text has all the same properties as an image.<p>It’s a composite of elements of varying height, width, and meaning to the whole.<p>Some sentences can be longer, or shorter. One element can be overloaded with meaning more than another.<p>I’m not really sure if there’s a point here at all.
评论 #26166429 未加载
ytersover 4 years ago
Text is actually made of a bunch of little pictures. Pictures: check and mate!
pestatijeover 4 years ago
Completely fails to mention speech.<p>And from the claims it makes (&quot;text is the oldest&quot;) it seems either forgot about it, or is not even aware such thing exists.
评论 #26165528 未加载
samwestdevover 4 years ago
Except nobody really reads text anymore. If you want to deliver a powerful message pics and vids have the most bang for the byte.
评论 #26164464 未加载
评论 #26164492 未加载
评论 #26164543 未加载