Categories
Photography Writing

Nostalgia about writing on paper, something more tangible

Jamie Todd Rubin shared his nostalgia about writing in a different time in his post titled “Writing on Paper“. He wrote about a much more tangible experience of writing and, even though I have a preference for digital, I empathise with him to a degree.

Writing on Paper

He isn’t talking about writing on paper in the sense of writing long form with a fancy ballpoint and pages of fine paper. Instead, he looks back at the satisfaction he had typing with a typewriter and seeing the pages accumulating on his desk.

In all the years that I’ve been writing on computer—and I’ve been writing on computer for far longer than I ever wrote on a typewriter—I have never found the experience to be quite as satisfying. It is physically easier for me to write on computer than it was on a typewriter. But it just isn’t as satisfying. I miss the accumulation of pages.

Typewriter memories

I don’t think I did much writing on a typewriter. My writing career began in school where most of my writing was done with a pen on paper and progressed to typing in Wordstar (or something like that) on our family PCs.

The few times I used a typewriter were somewhat satisfying. I vaguely remember the smell of a typewriter and the look of paper that had been typed on. It evokes some degree of nostalgia but not something I would necessarily want to return to.

One thing about typewriters that is appealing is that you just write. There is no messing with line spacing, font sizes or any of that stuff. As Rubin pointed out:

And besides, you can take WYSIWYG too far. Formatting distracts me from what I am trying to write. I am not trying to layout a newspaper or magazine. I’m writing a story, or a post.

This fidgety aspect of modern word processors is what drove me away from MS Word in a cold sweat. It is why I do most of my writing in plain text with MultiMarkdown. The thought of having to mess around with formatting just to write stuff makes me physically ill.

Still, I love the flexibility of digital and the prospect of all my work being fixed on sheets of paper that I can’t backup, edit and publish in minutes on the Web makes me itch.

It’s like film photography

In a way, using a typewriter and paper is a bit like going back to film photography. Digital photography makes us a little lazy. There is nothing to shooting dozens or hundreds of photos because we can filter out the ones we like and discard the rest.

When you make photos on film, you have to be a lot more deliberate about what you shoot and you don’t have that instant gratification of seeing your photo on the camera’s screen right afterwards. You have to wait for the roll of film to be processed and either have prints made or the negatives scanned. That changes the dynamic of photography quite a bit. As Om Malik put it in his post “Experimenting with film photography“:

You also can’t put a price on the lesson you learn with film — think before you shoot. Compose the photo in your mind before you try and press the shutter. And be deliberate.

I’m tempted to find some rolls of film and shoot them with my old film camera but, as with my writing, I don’t see myself replacing digital with film. The flexibility and opportunities to manipulate and share my work means I’d keep returning to digital. I shot a lot of film in school and even managed to get into a dark room a few times.

If anything, I wish I still have the negatives so I could scan them all. That part is increasingly important to me.

My romance is with the Web and with digital sharing, though, not with paper and film negatives (although I have fond memories of my time with both). At the same time, I appreciate Rubin’s words about his longing for a more tangible writing experience. There is definitely something there worth preserving in some way.

Image credit: Pixabay

Categories
Business and work Mindsets Writing

Are handwritten notes better than typed?

I like to think that I am more digital than analogue but, in recent years, I have started returning to handwritten notes as my preferred note-taking medium. I like plain text and use it for almost all my writing (at least as my “source text”). At the same time, my yellow pad and pen works so much better for me when I want to think through something or I’m in a meeting.

An article in Lifehacker titled “The Benefits of Writing by Hand Versus Typing” reminded me about this discussion about whether handwritten notes are better than doing it all digitally? I’ve read a number of articles that even go so far as to say that a stylus on a tablet still doesn’t match an ink pen on paper. Of course, now that I’ve just typed that, I can’t find the articles I read confirming that.

The Lifehacker article includes a really long infographic from the National Pen Company (so, yes, they have a preference) which is really interesting. Many people wax lyrical about various premium fountain pens. Om Malik, in particular, is a fountain pen fanatic and I like his perspective on writing with fountain pens:

On writing with fountain pens

My preferred pens tend to be off-the-shelf Pilot G–2 pens which I enjoy using. I have a couple fancier rollerball pens and they are nice to use too.

That said, I am still digital-centric so I usually capture my handwritten notes into Evernote when they are done. The thought of only working on paper with no backup or cross-platform accessibility freaks me out. Paper is great for original capture and brain noodling but that is just the beginning. It almost all becomes digital at some point or it’s subsequent value for me is limited.

Here is that infographic. Let me know what you think?

The Benefits of Handwriting vs Typing - Infographic

Image credit: Pexels

Categories
Mindsets Social Web

Laws are not just relevant after an event

Craig Rodney wrote a post I agree with, to a degree, earlier today and which he titled "Cultivating a social culture”. He makes an argument for culture’s primacy as a preventative tool for many risks and I agree with that. Essentially, he argues that engaging with your team and empowering them to make better decisions about what they do online is far more effective than just imposing a social media policy. As he points out towards the beginning of his post –

Tackling the topic of employees and social media is not simple, and thinking that having a social media policy in place will save you is dangerously shortsighted.

At the same time, his argument that culture is the cure is similarly shortsighted. Although he opens the door to some sort of legal framework as part of the solution to employees going off on a tangent and wreaking all sorts of havoc (he wrote his post in the context of employees using social media in problematic ways), his conclusion misses a number of important nuances, highlights fundamental problems with how lawyers generally tend to approach risks and ignores a function of law which, ironically, supports his argument for culture’s importance:

The only way through

The solution is to turn social into a positive strategic objective. Educate and encourage employees to make the most of social media. Teach them the rights and wrongs. Show them successful case studies of amazing social usage, and show them examples of when things go wrong. Empower them to make smart choices, to proudly represent your brand and to grow themselves using everything that’s available online. Give them a directive for effective collaboration.

Or you can try block social media on work computers, pretend that your policy has you covered, and see what happens.

Law is Cultural Code

Professor Lawrence Lessig wrote, in his book “Code”, the following –

Cyberspace demands a new understanding of how regulation works. It compels us to look beyond the traditional lawyer ’s scope—beyond laws, or even norms. It requires a broader account of “regulation,” and most importantly, the recognition of a newly salient regulator.

That regulator is the obscurity in this book’s title—Code. In real space, we recognize how laws regulate—through constitutions, statutes, and other legal codes. In cyberspace we must understand how a different “code” regulates—how the software and hardware (i.e., the “code” of cyberspace) that make cyberspace what it is also regulate cyberspace as it is. As William Mitchell puts it, this code is cyberspace ’s “law.” “Lex Informatica,” as Joel Reidenberg first put it, or better, “code is law.”

Lawyers and legal theorists get bothered, however, when I echo this slogan. There are differences, they insist, between the regulatory effects produced by code and the regulatory effects produced by law, not the least of which is the difference in the “internal perspective” that runs with each kind of regulation. We understand the internal perspective of legal regulation —for example, that the restrictions the law might impose on a company’s freedom to pollute are a product of self-conscious regulation, reflecting values of the society imposing that regulation. That perspective is harder to recognize with code. It could be there, but it need not. And no doubt this is just one of many important differences between “code” and “law.”

I prefer the idea that “law is code”. This idea has pretty much stuck with me since I wrote my motivation to be accepted into Wits University’s LLB program (this was back in the day when an LLB was a post-graduate degree only). I wrote something to the effect that, to me, law was integral to our societal fabric. Today I would say that law is part of and is embedded into our cultural code.

As I understand what Rodney wrote, he suggests there is a distinction between law and culture and the two are largely incompatible, possibly even mutually exclusive, almost like two magnets with the same polarities held together. It requires effort to bring culture and law together and the moment you remove the pressure, the two fly apart. I don’t believe that this is the case at all. I believe culture is shaped by law in varying degrees, just as law is shaped by culture (although at different rates).

Blame the lawyers, I do

This idea of law as being at odds with culture is prevalent in agency environments and its something I think about often. One of the reasons why I think this perception is so widely held and why it frequently leads agencies to steer clear of lawyers is because lawyers have historically been monumental and figurative pains in the butt when it comes to creative work, especially with the emergence of the social Web. The metaphor I have been using a lot lately is this idea of lawyers staging interventions, striding into creative people’s space and kicking over their blocks, telling them what they can’t play with.

Do this enough and you can understand why lawyers are quickly perceived as undesirables and only to be called when the proverbial dark matter hits the fan and you need to bring out the crisis managers (aka, the lawyers). By that time, it usually is more about damage control, recriminations and more fuel for growing distaste for and distrust of lawyers (who wonder why they weren’t brought in much earlier?). I see this happening far too often. I have been the lawyer called in to fix messes for many years.

The thing is, incorporating Legal into a process from the beginning can actually help avoid or, at least, mitigate future issues. Yes, lawyers tend to block creative ideas (even the ones who don’t think they do) and whittle down truly innovative campaigns into a series of iPad giveaways (thanks for the analogy, Rich) and that is rarely the best approach. A far better approach is to find the ways to support those creative stunts agencies come up with. There is often a way to make that happen and to keep modifications to those stunts to a minimum.

It is very possible to implement effective legal frameworks into innovative campaigns, you just need the right people to do that. Unfortunately, and as the part joke, part lament goes, 99% of lawyers give the rest of us a bad name and most lawyers who are brought in to advise agencies and the ones who don’t want any creative people playing with fun toys for fear of the risks involved. What they just don’t seem to appreciate is that risk is inherent in digital campaigns and it is more about managing that risk to acceptable levels. Most campaigns are doable and what is required are similarly creative legal frameworks and models to support them.

Integrate, integrate, innovate

When it comes to employees using social media, social media policies are hopelessly limited in isolation (although this is how many people develop them). They are only really effective when developed in broader cultural and strategic contexts as part of an integrated approach. Calling these frameworks “social media policies” is also a bit dated (that model made more sense in 2010 to 2011 or so when I worked on the first policies of their kind in SA amidst all the original hype around them). Engagement models are changing and the legal frameworks that organisations need are far more complex and interconnected.

If you want to manage the risks of employees using social media services, an integrated approach involving culture, education, empowerment and appropriate (and complete) legal frameworks is the most effective approach. Only talking to your lawyer after “an event”, as Rodney puts it, is too late. Involving your legal team early could prevent the “event” in the first place or likely mitigate the harm. The key is an integrated and collaborative approach, beginning to the end, not one now and the other later.

Categories
Design Travel and places

Analogue wins

Philosophical Hall of Strahov Monastery

Analogue wins in this room. Its the sort of space you can be inspired by, think profound thoughts in and in which a digital device would probably be both unwelcome and an affront to the space itself.

Right after that one, is this next room. Wow.

Theological Hall of Strahov Monastery