Comments on: Towards A Theory of Secondary Literacy http://snarkmarket.com/2009/3115 The stomping grounds of Tim Carmody, Robin Sloan and Matt Thompson. It's a long-running conversation about media, journalism, technology, cities, culture, design, books, music, movies, the future and the past. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:58:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: We Write in Public « Scrawled in Wax http://snarkmarket.com/2009/3115/comment-page-1#comment-15081 We Write in Public « Scrawled in Wax Sat, 23 Oct 2010 03:26:55 +0000 http://67.207.132.117/?p=3115#comment-15081 [...] is still, ya’ know, writing – a phenomenon Tim Carmody very usefully and smartly calls secondary literacy. It sometimes happens in real-time. It’s frequently social and very often public. It, like [...] […] is still, ya’ know, writing – a phenomenon Tim Carmody very usefully and smartly calls secondary literacy. It sometimes happens in real-time. It’s frequently social and very often public. It, like […]

]]> By: De inventione punctus « Snarkmarket http://snarkmarket.com/2009/3115/comment-page-1#comment-11864 De inventione punctus « Snarkmarket Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:26:49 +0000 http://67.207.132.117/?p=3115#comment-11864 [...] within the finite pos­si­bil­i­ties and inher­ited struc­tures of our key­boards. It’s the age of sec­ondary lit­er­acy: writ­ing and read­ing trans­formed by elec­tronic com­mu­ni­ca­tion, from tele­vi­sion [...] […] within the finite pos­si­bil­i­ties and inher­ited struc­tures of our key­boards. It’s the age of sec­ondary lit­er­acy: writ­ing and read­ing trans­formed by elec­tronic com­mu­ni­ca­tion, from tele­vi­sion […]

]]> By: Why reading machines? « Snarkmarket http://snarkmarket.com/2009/3115/comment-page-1#comment-6781 Why reading machines? « Snarkmarket Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:00:55 +0000 http://67.207.132.117/?p=3115#comment-6781 [...] me return to some­thing I wrote a few months ago, about the sur­pris­ing rekin­dling (no pun intended) of lit­er­acy in the dig­i­tal age: [...] […] me return to some­thing I wrote a few months ago, about the sur­pris­ing rekin­dling (no pun intended) of lit­er­acy in the dig­i­tal age: […]

]]> By: Tim http://snarkmarket.com/2009/3115/comment-page-1#comment-5589 Tim Sat, 25 Jul 2009 11:41:25 +0000 http://67.207.132.117/?p=3115#comment-5589 Moreover, reading and typing are both relatively inconspicuous. You can do them easily in public, and while distracted. The need to be able to get information while distracted, to perceive signal through noise, has also meant that real-time interaction is overrated. This was already indicated with the answering machine, the VCR, and TiVo. We want our interactions to be swift and responsive, but asynchronous. We don't want to wait. Real-time is giving way to my-time. There's also something about the way the audio channel, through TV, radio, etc., has become dominated by entertainment. We just don't get actionable information that way anymore. Because it demands attention (McLuhan would say it's a "hot medium"), listening to sound is *frustrating*. It's frustrating to navigate a sound menu over the telephone, or to listen to ALL of your messages all of the way through to find the one you need. Google Voice has generated huge buzz basically through its promise to turn speech into text - visual voicemail, transcripts of calls. But talking isn't frustrating. Nobody gets excited about listening to their computer. People get excited about talking to their computer, and having their computer understand them. But for the most part, this hasn't materialized. My Blackberry's got voice search capacity for Google - I never use it. I have expensive speech recognition software on my laptop - I *rarely* use it. There's something cultural and technical holding us back here - I don't think speech entry is clearly superior to typing, but we're all typists now. Moreover, reading and typing are both relatively inconspicuous. You can do them easily in public, and while distracted.

The need to be able to get information while distracted, to perceive signal through noise, has also meant that real-time interaction is overrated. This was already indicated with the answering machine, the VCR, and TiVo. We want our interactions to be swift and responsive, but asynchronous. We don’t want to wait. Real-time is giving way to my-time.

There’s also something about the way the audio channel, through TV, radio, etc., has become dominated by entertainment. We just don’t get actionable information that way anymore.

Because it demands attention (McLuhan would say it’s a “hot medium”), listening to sound is *frustrating*. It’s frustrating to navigate a sound menu over the telephone, or to listen to ALL of your messages all of the way through to find the one you need. Google Voice has generated huge buzz basically through its promise to turn speech into text — visual voicemail, transcripts of calls.

But talking isn’t frustrating. Nobody gets excited about listening to their computer. People get excited about talking to their computer, and having their computer understand them. But for the most part, this hasn’t materialized. My Blackberry’s got voice search capacity for Google — I never use it. I have expensive speech recognition software on my laptop — I *rarely* use it. There’s something cultural and technical holding us back here — I don’t think speech entry is clearly superior to typing, but we’re all typists now.

]]> By: Howard Weaver http://snarkmarket.com/2009/3115/comment-page-1#comment-5588 Howard Weaver Sat, 25 Jul 2009 10:23:36 +0000 http://67.207.132.117/?p=3115#comment-5588 Here's a factor I've rarely seen discussed in conversations about "post-textual literacy" and the like: I can read about 10 times faster than I can listen. Almost everybody can read three or four times faster. Doesn't this suggest an efficiency in information transfer that will dominate for a long time? Here’s a factor I’ve rarely seen discussed in conversations about “post-textual literacy” and the like: I can read about 10 times faster than I can listen. Almost everybody can read three or four times faster.

Doesn’t this suggest an efficiency in information transfer that will dominate for a long time?

]]>