Re: Google Books
- From: Kellscraft Studio <kellscraft@[redacted]>
- Subject: Re: Google Books
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:39:37 -0300
Well, I'm actually incredulous at David Starner's comment. Now the artist
is blamed for not taking into account techonlogy 100 years later, not to
mention the fact that the original writer/artist has a _purpose_ in the
physical layout of the book/poem, etc... that we are losing in some sense
if we don't digitize with an eye to original intent:
David Starner wrote:
> Tristam Shandy was designed in such a way that it would get mangled.
> That's poor design on the author and original publisher's part, and
> makes it a poor choice for any study of the quality of any system.
What next? Blame da Vinci for not realising the Mona Lisa wasn't properly
designed to be reproduced full-size on 8 1/2 by 11 paper? This is quite
the specious argument. Let's stop blaming the original artists/writers for
designing for their own print medium because we have a problem re-designing
them for the new digital media. The fault, dear David, "lies not in our
stars, but in ourselves...." .....Pardon me, Will. I couldn't resist.
BTW, I thought the Tristam Shandy article was spot on. If Google only
produces dreck, and it's the only game in town, we'll only be reading
digital dreck. That's why what we do here is important in the long run.