Comparison and Contrast Between a Printed Text and a Hypertext
Beforehand, I prefer of defining what is a printed text and a hypertext. Lexically, a printed text is any lettering or other impressions produced in ink as from type by a printing press or from digital fonts by an electronic printer or the text appearing in a book, newspaper, or other printed publication.
Meanwhile a hypertext is computer software and hardware that allows users to create, store, and view text and move between related items easily and in a nonsequential way; a word or phrase can be selected to link users to another part of the same document or to a different document. It can also be defined as a machine-readable text that is not sequential but is organized so that related items of information are connected.
Thus both types of text have a similar purpose—that is to provide a reader any items of readable materials. But why do they differ if they only have similar purpose? I think that is for two reasons—convenience and accountability. As of definition, a hypertext is produced by a machine therefore; locating a topic or detail in a hypertext that you want is more convenient than a printed text. But as far as accountability concerns, I’d prefer a printed text because hypertext contains lots of sources though none of it is assured liable.
Nonetheless, aside from its similarity I also consider its difference to be not only the perception but also what readers can do with the text. If text is "that which is woven," the difference between printed and hypertexts is in who does the weaving: in print the author is solely responsible for weaving the text, in hypertext the reader takes on the responsibility. As for my conclusion, the medium should not affect the way we think of a text whether it is printed or hypertext.