I’ve seen attempts to create ‘trail blazing’ apps or extensions which visualize trails by sliding back and forth along an authored trail of links, often with some sort of annotation.
They all seemed to create an experience like clicking through a random PowerPoint slide deck - linking web pages rather than authored slides.
Not very pleasant or satisfying - a fragmented ‘look out the window’ scrapbook experience, not the narrative flow of a movie or trail guide.
The questions are:
1. How can the normal experience of reading a *coherent* narrative argument be created with/from a pile of notes such that the notes or something derived from them are still available for those who want to dive deep. (1/2)
@marick 🧵#Hypertext trails
Two web models for the AWMT trail vision
Threads - somewhat like this, but with the ability of the author (single or collaborative) to edit the posts and sequences of posts, like scenes of a movie;
A Guide page - with a title, brief description of its purpose, author, supporting references, and…
a trail section consisting of a sequence of elements, each with a a title, link, and brief explanation of the relevance of that element (or what happens).
@marick 🧵#Hypertext trails
In both cases:
1) The trail is a URL addressable, sharable, viewable as a W3C object using a vanilla Web browser; It can be indexed and shared trivially.
2) The trail can be edited using an internal representation that is constrained only by a requirement to make it URL addressable, shareable, viewable, per 1).
3) People already know how to create, use (or watch) videos, guidebooks, annotated reference lists as recorded context that’s helpful to them or others.
But I agree that trails should have some sort of metadata attached to them.
I should think more about what I actually want: which is vaguely along the lines of authors composing trails for intended audiences (drawing from a larger collection of linkable-as-sidenotes pages, presented for reference and deeper dives) (1/2)
But there’s also a need to think about how the reader deviates from the trail (which they have always done, and that’s often of great value, worth reifying?)
I think there’s an approach that could be better than what we have, but I don’t know what it is. (2/2)
It may be that the linear texts we’ve had for centuries are in fact the maximum that people cope with.
A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate
