I found the chapter on digitalization of today’s analog artifacts to be incredibly interesting. I like how descriptive and informative the writing is because it does a great job of helping me to understand what’s being discussed. I also really like how easy the book is to understand because the language is relatively simple. There were a few topics in this section that really stuck out for me. These were quality, expenses, and accessibility.

Quality is a significant factor in the digitizing process and there are both pros and cons to this aspect. An obvious problem here is a loss of quality. This is especially prominent in the digitization of visual and audio files. One quote from the text that I liked is:

“But with 24 bits , you would have millions of colors at your disposal and could thus better approximate, though never fully match, the rich rainbow hues of Monet’s Water Lilies.”

As the quote implies, digital images just aren’t the same as the original piece. We cannot completely and perfectly duplicate an image, only approximate it. Aside from this, however, the quality gap between original and digital is being bridged as technology gets better. Additionally, sometimes quality of an old photograph, for example, can even be enhanced and salvaged as a product of digitization.

The expenses of digitalization is also important to discuss. Generally, costs for the digitalization process are high. When quality of work is in question, cost generally increases even more. Although prices are being lowered and it is becoming more affordable than before to digitalize the past, expenses are still significant. I found that costs seem to go hand-in-hand with quality. I personally think that top quality is worth the money.

Lastly, accessibility is another important topic. I personally believe that this is the most important product of digitalization. The accessibility of a file increases drastically once an image, sound clip, or document is digital. This makes it possible to look up and find an important document online that was perhaps only available in a museum. The only drawback to this is searching for a file. For example, audio and visual files are hard to search for because we can only search in text form. However, adding text tags usually solves this problem. Other than that, I think the accessibility of all these now digital items is the biggest pro in this process.

There is no denying that the future, and I dare say even the present, is digital. There are some negatives associated with the process of making analog items digital. Nonetheless, I believe that there will be less problems as technology advances in the future.

Here’s a little about me:

• My name is Kamna.
• I’m a sophomore Comm major.
• I’m 19 years old.
• I was born and raised in Loudoun County, Virginia.
• Here‘s my Tumblr page, in case anyone wants to follow me. (Sorry, I just needed to throw a link in here somewhere.)

Here are 3 less boring things about me:

1. I love going to concerts, mainly metal shows or large festivals.
2. My name means “desire” in Hindi.
3. I’m vegetarian.

Here’s what I look like:

And here’s something that I’ve been listening to lately:

T.H. Nelson’s “Complex Information Processing: A File Structure for the Complex, the Changing and the Indeterminate” was incredibly detailed and informative. Throughout the piece, Nelson primarily focusses on design of a system and then builds upon the early groundwork laid by Vannevar Bush. I’m glad to have read Vannevar Bush’s article beforehand and have it fresh in my mind while reading this because Nelson does reference the article, and more specifically the memex, a few times. He also references ‘Bush trails’ when explaining linking outlines. So having read Bush’s article, I had a good background and foundation for Nelson’s paper.

One of the main points Nelson discusses is an evolutionary list file, or ELF. ELFs seem clean and organized, which stick to Nelson’s idea of being simple and not complicated. There are three components to ELFs: an entry, list, and link. Entries are essentailly the objects that are being created or altered. I thought the list was very much like a folder on a computer because they contain all the objects or entries. The link is like a pathway to the objects, but they lead to any other entry from any other list. I found that to be very useful because then it’s open to all other lists.

I liked how the uses for the system are very open-ended. Nelson even writes, “Remember that there is no correct way to use the system. Given its structure, the user may figure out any method useful to him. A number of different arrangements can be constructed in the ELF, using only the basic elements of entry, list and link.”

Nelson’s writing was not as complicated as Bush’s; however, some concepts were a little difficult to fully comprehend. But because Nelson stressed the importance of a simplicity in programming, he was also fairly simple in explaining terms. This is seen when he states, “The basic arrangement chosen for these purposes is an information structure I will refer to as zippered lists. (We might call it permutation-invariant one-for-one inter-list entry-linking, but that is not necessary.)” I actually found that a little funny.

Although the technical terms were a little hard to fully understand, I found Nelson’s work to be very informative. I’m more interested in this field than I had previously thought!

Vannevar Bush’s article “As We May Think” was a very interesting read. Although I did find it confusing at times and I did have to re-read several sections to fully grasp the meaning, I still got a lot out of it.

One thing I liked about the article was its structure. The first few sections merely described ideas or concepts, and later sections had more concrete examples of those ideas. For example, Bush discusses “dry photography” towards the beginning of the article and then references it many times specifically toward the end. This layout made sense to me and helped me to understand exactly what he was talking about.

On the other hand, I disliked how complex the language was. There were several terms that were either too advanced or too specific to a certain topic for me to understand what was going on. I had to re-read some parts of the article to feel less confused, but was still left unsure of exactly what Bush was talking about. This didn’t fully distract me from understanding the article as a whole, but it did lead to some uncertainty and even frustration.

As for the content in the article, I found the points Bush made to be incredibly relevant to contemporary technology. Although “As We May Think” was written in the 1940’s, it seems advanced and more recent because most of what he discusses is pertinent now.

Starting in section 6, Bush describes a machine he coins a “memex.” Quite obviously to someone in today’s age, he seems to be describing a computer. I found it really interesting when he explained the processes of which a computer, or memex, works. When he spoke of trails, for example, it reminded me of the folders on a computer. This made me think more deeply about the technology we use today and how it really works. This deeper thinking was also evoked in other sections, such as section 5 when Bush described the simple way that a telephone works.

Vannevar Bush is a genius in the sense that he wrote of such advanced processing technology in what seems like such a long time ago. Despite minor distractions and confusion due to the writing style of the piece, “As We May Think” was a gratifying read.

Welcome to onMason. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!