Comments on “How we read: Close, Hyper, Machine”
Kathryn Hayles proposed very powerful ideas in the article. In our era of digital information , there is an obvious gap between instructions and available skills. Digital reading is a trend however we are taught by traditional literal teaching for close reading.
She has proposed a lot of examples how researchers are testing new ways of information convey combining close reading(mainly refer to traditional literature), hypertext and machine reading.
The F type of reading website is really interesting and I totally agree with her idea that the main point of hypertext may not only for comprehension but for enrichment. It is a fact that the explosion of information may make people distracted and hard to grab gist. But for students, if they are doing research work, it is more based on their own topic and idea, they have already got an idea and the search for hyperlinks may surely broaden their research then the linear way of reading. What they need is enrichment for their own subjective idea. We need better design to reduce distraction. Maybe the hyperlinks may appear in a specific column instead of poping out after each sentence.
The Facebook tragedy of Remeo and Juliet is a great trial. It is a great way to grab information, interact with people. It makes the master piece more close and vivid. But part of the highlight of it is its words and descriptions which is definitely not shown.
For me, it is more important that you have an idea and you may use the platform of digital materials and the tools like Wordle to help you think and analyze things, to communicate for inspiration. Traditional close reading in a quiet place, without the aim of grabing information is still important which is not only a way of enjoying literature but an attitude for the slow and non-aim life.
Enter text in Markdown. Use the toolbar above, or click the ? button for formatting help.