On Sat, 20 Aug 1994 09:04:19 -0400, Aaron Goldblatt wrote: > > Ken, yes you are certainly right. It makes a huge difference on the product >when you choose a process. But do you choose the process (tool) based on your >attraction to it rather than letting the needs of the project determine the >tool? It is perfectly clear that computer technology, in all its >manifestations, offers an unprecedented array of ways to communicate. It can >even give us wholly new ways to think about the act of communicating. But it is >still an array of tools. The decision making process should still be driven by >the fundamental goals established for the project. > Aaron, I guess I feel it's more complicated than that, that we, in effect, choose the stories we tell in part by our sense of the medium in which we are going to tell them and that the medium, in term, shapes and defines the story. I would argue that if we are not thinking in those terms we are shortchanging both medium and story -- think of the movies you have seen that are basically just filmed plays, for example. I'm not commenting on the appropriateness or versatility of the technology at all; I am simply arguing against the notion that all you are doing when you move from one set of technologies to another is upgrading your potential -- you're not, you're shifting storytelling environments, and that makes it a different story.