Slashdot Mirror
The Myth of the Paperless Office
AdamBa writes: "The New Yorker is running an
interesting review
of the book
'The Myth of the Paperless Office', also discussing
'Scrolling Forward'. Read
it and the ever-informative
Malcolm Gladwell will
explain why paper enables collaborative work much better than computers do, why a messy desk is a sign of productivity, and give a little background on the inventor of the Dewey Decimal System to boot."
"why a messy desk is a sign of productivity"
wrong. Whether or not your producing is a sign of productivity, not the state of your desk.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
One Word. Resolution. Until you can buy a computer monitor for very cheap that has the resolution that paper does, the paperless office will never succeed.
Draft copies are the biggest reason there will never be a paperless office. If you have a 15 page draft and distribute it to 20 people for comments, trying to organize and incorporate the comments is damn near impossible. Never mind the act of these people commenting is already 3 times harder than it would be if you just gave out hard copy. My boss decided to try "paperless drafts" for documents we were reviewing and it was an abysmal failure. If the IT department thinks it's clunky and convoluted, then everyone else won't think about it at all.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
Things I enjoy about paper:
+ It doesn't crash
+ It rarely loses data
+ 100% availability with proper care
+ Annotations are simple
+ Easy to take with you
+ Content doesn't change
+ Extremely quick access and intuitive interface
+ High resolution/easy on the eyes
Things I don't enjoy about paper:
+ Indexing/searching is tedious
+ Backups can be difficult
Right now, the list of pros/cons favors paper for me. PDAs are starting to reduce some of the cons (i.e. easy to take with you) but still suffer from most of the rest. About the only time a paper document becomes "unavailable" is when it gets lost. Can the same be said for your PC or PDA?
The crisp black-on-white is easy to read. Some LCD panels have text that is pretty easy to read at low resolutions (i.e. 1024x768 at around 100 pixels per inch) but can't touch the level of detail of even a cheap laser printed page of 300 dots (pixels) per inch. Professional typesetting often gets up to 2400 dots per inch. Not even close. This often doesn't matter for text, but what about that detailed network diagram that gets turned to mud at 100dpi. (Don't even get me started on people who use lossy compression on such images...)
Annotations are a given with paper-- just grab a pen and go to town. In the digital world, each and every software package needs to explicitly support annotations in order for this required ability to be present. So far as I know, no major PDF viewer allows one to take notes on it, so off to the printer it goes! (I realize that some PDF authoring software allows this kind of thing. The ones I have seen were masterpieces of overengineering and were correspondingly priced. What's wrong with a basic "notes in the margin" feature included at no cost?)
Until the massive inconveniences of using digital media are resolved, paper will continue to play a dominant role in exchanging and storing information.
1) I can read it while standing in a train.
2) I scribble over it and keep these notes for later reference.
and most importantly,
3) I can take it with me to the loo where I can read it at leisure.
This underlying falacy was coined (by whom - that would be interesting to research..) by two different sorts of people trying to do two very different things:
1) one was a cost-analysis expert trying to rationalize an expensive investment in hardware and software
and..
2) at the other end of the spectrum, a polyanna futurist concocting a forecast of the brave new world we would soon be joining.
The biggest problem -- and here I'd probably blame the popular media -- is that our culture bought into the idea and it became it's own self-replicating meme.
The big problem is that the fundamental idea is a bunch of cr*p.
At some point, I'm very, very sorry, but at some point we need hard copy.
This will be true for some time, I would think, if not indefinitely...
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
To me it seems like I can think about what I'm reading more easily if its in dead tree format. Its certainly easier to read code on paper for me (most of the descreet bits of code I have to read print out to between 5 and 50 pages. Longer things would be much more unwieldy.)
If I'm working on a config file I'd rather have a book open beside me than try and flip back and forth between a README and an ssh window.
Even just reading text seems easier to comprehend on paper than the same text on screen does.
Contrast: monitor contrast is WAY lower than paper, it's harder on the eyes than a sheet of paper is
Glare: monitor glare makes things hard to see
Portability: until you have a 2-ounce monitor that you can hold in your hand while reclining in your chair, paper's got you beat.
I'm sure there's more. Personally, even beeing the computer-geek that I am, I MUST do the final editing of any document I produce with a paper printout. I don't know why, but it's just SO much easier.
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
Where have you heard that rainforests are cleared for paper production? Paper is usually made from pulp harvested from tree farms, which IIRC use Southern Pine and other dime-a-dozen species. Rainforests are usually cleared for cattle ranching, construction, and exotic hardwoods.
I've already seen several posters who rate electronic documents over paper documents because of the tree-saving factor; have they all forgotten that the pc uses electricity, which consumes all sorts of natural resources? I'm as much for saving the environment as the next guy is. Let's start by being factual: does anybody have a reliable comparison of Total Energy Cost of paper & electronic documents?
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
It's lightweight, and neatly folds up into a smaller space.
You must have some different kind of paper than I do. Either that or you don't read very much. Paper is bulky, heavy and a real pain to cart around.
Bits are really lightweight and you can fit an unbelievably large number of them into a very tiny space. My e-Book weighs less about three pounds, takes up the same space as one paperback and carries the content of 15-20 books. I can fit a few technical references, all of the documentation to the projects I'm currently working on, a bunch of the source code and a few novels besides all in that tiny space.
Any then there's my laptop, with its 32GB HDD...
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
...is the lack of interoperability between different programs on different systems. You don't need the latest version of MS Eyes 2002 to read a paper document. Despite all of the advances in user interfaces, computers are still hard to use.
Not to mention that everyone is always more trusting of paper copies. It is usually very easy to discover if a paper copy has been altered.
When you are able to talk to your computer in plain language, ie "Bring up the invoice from last month" you might be able to begin to eliminate paper. Don't get me wrong, computers are great for indexing and retreiving data. Getting the data into the computer is the hard part.
...there will never be a paperless office.
"Can I print it out?" is the most oft-heard phrase in IT. Satellite images of the Pacific Northwest slowly fade from green to brown as the laser and inkjets churn out page after page after page of documents that nobody reads.
The quote is and remains, "if it can't be described on a single 8.5x11 sheet of paper, it cannot be understood." I have an additional quote. "The only person who reads every page of a 50-page work of non-fiction is the person who wrote it."
But the more fundamental problem is this: the current group of GUIs for computers are terribly inefficient when trying to keep up with a time-limited multiple-task environment like air traffic control. Note that ATC displays are monochrome text and dots, not 50 fps, 3D-enhanced, voxel-textured, next-generation, quad-GPU multimedia extravaganzas.
Trying to get a lot of small items of information into multiple places with the current "desktop computers" is a task apparently best suited to an xterm. No mouse required, no navigating a little pointer all over the place, no looking for things, no browsing. Also, the GUI on Windows is a royal pain to use when trying to read from one application and type in another. Bah.
Just some rambling thoughts.
I use a lot of email and i read a lot of online texts... i'm a tech geek at heart. I love new technologies, gadgets, and gizmos as much as anyone.
But there's a very good reason I'll never give up paper totally: Comfort.
It's like the person who eats out at gourmet restaurants all the time, but can't resist a grilled cheese sandwich with canned tomato soup. It's comfort food for the mind.
I love the smell of paper, the texture of it, and the way the printed word looks on it. Paper is a very tactile thing. It's there, you feel it. it's a part of your physical world. Words on a view screen will never compete with it, at least not for me.
As an added bonus, I can read a book for 8 hours straight and not want to dig my eyes out with a spoon.
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo - H. G. Wells
I work at a place that has gone a long way towards the paperless office. The paperless office isn't about replacing the GOOD paper like reports and documents. It's about replacing the BAD paper like vacation forms, transfer forms, etc. All that stuff that gets lost, folded, spindled, and then your HMO benefits or direct deposit doesn't get done correctly.
A paperless office is a GOOD THING(tm) but more of a good thing isn't necessarily better.
-CZ
The issue of power consumption is silly. People are never going to stop using PCs regardless of how much paper they waste. The PC will sit on their desk burning up electricity even if it's only used to print duplicates of email and view porn. PCs will consume less energy in the future and reprocessed nuclear fuel is a renuable resource much like southern pine.
Finally, rain forests are not being cut for cattle farming and exotic hard wood. Most trees in Brazil are felled for slash and burn agriculture by "settelers", refugees from urban slums. The exotic hardwood is burnt with the rest because few countries will buy it. Cattle farming may move in after the land is exhausted (one year or so for the soil to errode to unusable clay.) but it's not a pimary cause.
The world is what you make it. We can use our resources wisely and make more for each other, of we can let vendors of shoddy wares waste our resources and efforts. Surely, M$ is the primary reason people print all of their junk at work, and the paperless office uses more paper than ever before.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
When I was in college, I finally hit upon the proper way to write a paper. Not the all-too-common stream of consciousness in Word, but the tried and true method. I would first go to the library and use the electronic catalogue to find the general locations of books on my subject (say, 19th century German naval policy). Then I'd go to that section and browse the shelves looking for more books on the subject than my search had turned up. You see, the old and the new methods were complimentary.
I'd fill my briefcase with books, then head out to the local pub and get a table. I'd spread the books in great piles around me, pull out a sheet of paper and write--in longhand--a very general outline of what I wanted. Writing by hand forced me to think harder about what I was doing, as it is slower than typing. I'd then thumb through the books, noting on index cards what items were interesting (so that I could refer to them later). I'd then improve my outline and flesh it out, each time rewriting it longhand--making me familiar with it, revealing where it lacked &c.
Then I'd write the paper, by hand, from the outline. I'd read through it, and make any corrections which revealed themselves. Finally, I'd return to my flat and format the whole thing in LaTeX. This is where footnotes and the like would be inserted, using those notecards I mentioned earlier. I'd print out a draft, read through it once more, then print a final copy for my professor.
This manual process enabled me to consider the thrust and flow of my papers, of the arguments therein. It enabled me to do far better research than students who relied solely on the electronic index of books. It enabled the best grades of my college career. It also enabled me to enjoy many fine beers at the local pub, which was just fine by me:-)
The computer was no less essential. A paper formatted in LaTeX is a thing of beauty--and this cannot be over-emphasised when discussing the resulting grades. A paper written longhand is unatttractive.
The technologies are not mutually exclusive, but rather complimentary.