Re: Alternatives to icky polluted snailmail, was Re: fighting Anthrax w/ Dr. Strangelove

From: Dan Clemmensen (
Date: Sat Oct 20 2001 - 14:04:04 MDT

Michael M. Butler wrote:

> Delivered, sure, but _read_? Efficiently?
> Remaining problem: overall, screens still suck. One can speed read _clean_ paper
> (not talking about low res faxes here) considerably faster than one can speed read a screen.
> This is well substantiated by research done at Xerox PARC, MIT Media Lab and elsewhere.
> If one is in the business of dealing with lots of mail, there will be a huge productivity
> hit if one is limited to 72-100 dpi screens for reading.
> Get me one of those new copper-matrix IBM flat-panels, and I might be able to tolerate
> reading paper mail that's been scanned. AFAIK, they're not in mass production yet.

I suspect that most folks don't spend a substantial percentage of the
day reading p=mail. which is the only category of reading matter I'm
talking about. The efficiencies gained in filing, routing, and
retrieval, and averting the productivity loss due to (mostly silly)
worry about bioterrorism, will more than make up for the slower reading
speed. Such a system would also facilitate telecommuting, which saves
gas and time.

You are correct that reading scanned text or Fax on the screen is slower
for some people, and you are correct that the problem is the display,
not the scanner. Since the images are static, a display optimized for
resolution at the expense of frame rate would be ideal. Is anybody
doing this?

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:14 MDT