Interactive frames for expansive writing
November 5, 2024
Category:
Speculative
Writing is often seen as a linear process, with one sentence following another until an idea reaches completion. But thinking is rarely so straightforward. Our minds leap, double back, and branch off in various directions, raising the question of what truly makes a supportive writing tool. I contend that it’s less about formatting capabilities and more about offering interactions that foster a seamless flow between writing and exploration, allowing ideas to develop cohesively within a given context.
When beginning a new writing project, you start with a blank page and a collection of references to review. As you examine each source, you might highlight key passages, capture screenshots of images and graphics, save relevant links, and organize them either in a dedicated section of your document or in a separate reference file. A common issue with this approach is that these resources often remain siloed, disconnected from both their original context and the specific parts of your writing where their significance is most relevant. Furthermore, as you write, tangent thoughts and questions frequently arise, yet spatially anchoring them to the precise moment they occur is poorly supported in most writing tools. This limitation forces us to rely on scattered annotations, transient footnotes, or brightly colored comments—a patchwork attempt to compensate for the lack of more integrated, intuitive interactions that allow tangents to be captured organically as they emerge.
Another major frustration I face in the writing process is managing the multiple versions that naturally emerge as a project evolves. Different sequences of sections, alternative sentence structures, or subtle word choices can all seem viable, yet tracking and comparing these variations within a single document quickly becomes overwhelming. This often leads to a chaotic array of confusing duplicate files with humorous names like draft-1, draft-1-final, final-final, and so on. These scattered versions ultimately disrupt the continuity of the document, making it difficult to assess changes in the broader context of the work as a whole.
Writing is as much about the journey toward understanding as it is about the final expression of thought. A piece of writing is never static; it grows from rough scribbles, layered ideas, fleeting insights, a friend’s comment, or the unexpected question that surfaces during revision. The space in which we cultivate this multidimensional thinking should capture and preserve these moments. Without a focus on designing for our natural cognitive processes, we risk falling into the trap of creating tools that prioritise technology integration before having explored the interactions that truly foster the development and exploration of thought.
The better we can define the tools we need, the better our tools will serve us as extensions of our human capabilities.
Douglas Engelbart, Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework (1962)
Tools for Thought - the old desire for augmented tools
The ambition to create tools that amplify human intellect, whether through writing systems, symbolic logic, or physical artefacts, has been a longstanding interest, framing a substantial field for exploration today in strategies for cognitive augmentation through interface design.
It can be tempting to approach innovation in software development by keeping it up to the latest popular technologies, and the implementation of large language models in nearly every text editor is perhaps another proof of that. However, this fixation might be stifling a deeper and more fundamental exploration of what would actually support the divergent way we process and synthesise information.
While AI integration certainly expands the toolset, it is still an external element to the immediacy and serendipity of human thinking. In order to support users in building structured understanding about new topics it is fundamental that the user critically engages with the new domain of knowledge, and thus, designing interactions that aid thought structuring can be far more valuable than AI integrations alone.
It might seem that I’m making an argument against the least controversial premise of AI, but that’s not the case. What I question is the idea that AI can replace the deeply personal and intimate processes we rely on to deconstruct information—processes uniquely tied to our individual ways of thinking and essential for building genuine understanding. I would argue that, as long as our tools continue to overlook fundamental, supportive interactions that foster an immediate and intuitive connection between information and the user, AI-assisted chats risk becoming little more than entertaining ornaments.
To set a compelling path forward, we can look to the foundational work of early computing pioneers whose vision was to create interfaces that align with the natural ways people think—fluidly, intuitively, and non-linearly. Howard Rheingold’s Tools for Thought (1985) captures this original ambition, focusing not on automating thought but on empowering it. Figures like Douglas Engelbart, Vannevar Bush, and J.C.R. Licklider, as discussed by Rheingold, envisioned computers as tools to augment human intellect, fostering exploratory, divergent, and collaborative modes of thinking.
To view a writing app as merely a digital sheet for depositing text reflects a limited, Cartesian perspective that separates the mind from the tools it uses, overlooking how closely integrated cognitive processes and digital interfaces are. Modern thinkers, however, encourage us to move beyond this dualism, emphasising that we operate within a dynamic integration of mind, body, and environment.
Research in psychology has shown that the tools we engage with are not merely external aids; they become integrated with our perception of the world, actively shaping our thought processes and interactions. In this context, the user is not passive, nor are the tools neutral; rather, they guide and influence the accuracy and depth of our thinking, becoming embodied elements in the cognitive process (Merleau-Ponty, 1945). Designing a tool that truly amplifies thought involves more than technological ambition; it requires developing embodied interactions that act as extensions of the user’s own cognitive process—tools that feel “ready-at-hand” (zuhanden) (Heidegger, 1927).
Every domesticated plant and animal, every tool, every utensil, every appliance, every manufactured article, every aesthetic decoration, every work of art means a transformation of conditions once hostile or indifferent to characteristic human activities into friendly and favouring conditions.
John Dewey, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education (1916).
Design Goals
In this speculative design proposal, I aim to address some key limitations of existing writing software by exploring framework-driven tools that directly support the pain points described above. Specifically, this proposal focuses on developing contextual margin annotations that allow users to capture spontaneous thoughts as they arise and seamlessly navigate between the main writing block and reference materials. Additionally, it proposes an integrated text version management at the level of the word, sentence, and paragraph within a single document, enabling users to review and compare different drafts while preserving context and narrative continuity.
Integrated Version Control for Iterative Writing
Writing is an inherently iterative process, with each project representing a sequence of considered drafts and refinements. This design supports a more fluid iteration process by enabling version management at multiple levels—from individual words to entire paragraphs—without requiring users to leave the active document. By providing an integrated version control system within the file, writers can view and assess each iteration within the broader context of their project, along with annotations and references. This approach minimises the need for duplicate files and brings all variations together in one dynamic workspace, streamlining the incremental development of ideas and text.
Word-level versions enable the management of small changes, making edits visually clear without requiring additional clutter or fragmented files and notes.
When a version history is available for a paragraph, a menu icon appears at the bottom of the text block. Opening the menu allows users to switch between versions or, by pressing Command and selecting a version, open it in a side window for easy comparison.
Alternatively, the version history icon can be toggled to open a side card view displaying available versions, allowing for an easy transition between them.
At the bottom left of each paragraph block, users can create a new version, which opens in a floating window within the writing area, keeping the current version visible for easy reference.
Support contextual tangent thinking
Effective writing software should support the spontaneity and complexity of thought, allowing users to capture and organise ideas in context as they arise. Tangents encompass all thoughts or resources related to specific parts of the text—be it a word, sentence, or section—providing a dynamic way to engage with ideas without disrupting the main narrative flow. This approach preserves continuity while enabling users to explore connections between their main writing material and supporting ideas in a non-linear way.
To achieve this, the design proposes three complementary strategies: margin notes, in-line comments, and trails.
Margin Notes
Margin notes act as a flexible space for quick, spontaneous thoughts directly connected to specific parts of the text, much like traditional marginalia in books. These notes sit alongside the main text, making them easily accessible without intruding on the primary narrative flow. Designed for capturing open-ended ideas, relevant links, or reflections, margin notes align with their reference point in the text, preserving context and continuity enabling users to revisit ideas without losing their place in the main document, supporting a non-linear exploration of ideas.
Annotations on both highlighted and non-highlighted text are displayed similarly, but comments linked to highlighted segments are color-bound to maintain a clear association with the referenced text.
The writing window can be expanded or compacted by toggling the side panel, which displays all text interactions. When the panel is closed, clicking on a highlighted section marked with a comment icon opens an in-block view of that note, keeping the annotation accessible without disrupting the main text.
In-Line Comments
In-line comments offer an embedded, editorial-style note-taking feature. These notes appear within the main text but can be shown or hidden as needed, allowing users to annotate specific words, phrases, or sections without cluttering the reading experience. Ideal for content that requires direct attention, in-line comments support on-the-fly feedback or personal editing notes, as they don’t appear in print-ready formats. This feature enables a flexible, layered approach to revision and refinement, offering an intuitive way to manage edits without disrupting the primary text.
Trails
Source trails provide a seamless way to incorporate external references directly into the writing space, allowing users to connect media, clipboard content, and highlights directly from their sources. By dragging these elements into the document, the app generates an automatic link back to the original source—using transclusion, which embeds a selection from one document within another, creating a navigable “trail” between the two. Inspired by Vannevar Bush’s Memex and Ted Nelson’s Xanadu System, this feature preserves the context of each reference, enabling users to trace foundational materials effortlessly while building a richly layered structure that supports multifaceted exploration within their writing.
Afterword
In an era where we increasingly feel destined to become operators of creation machines, we risk designing our work environments with the deterministic belief that they are meant more for operating than for creating. It is precisely at this point that our capacity for deeper, more primal encounters with truth and meaning becomes constrained, reducing our actions to mere utilitarian functions.
Reflecting on my own and others’ frustrations with the limited cognitive scope of current writing tools, I have turned my focus toward interactions that feel as natural as pen on paper—how we instinctively strike through a line, underline a thought for emphasis, jot a quick annotation in the margins, or fold the corner of a page to mark our place. In this essay, I aim to illustrate how interactions rooted in familiar behaviours, drawn from both digital and physical tools, can serve as human-centered mediums that support our natural cognitive processes in exploratory writing tasks.
The allure of implementing new technologies will always capture our attention. However, it is within the nuanced layers of an environment that meaningful, embodied experiences are truly built. In this way, design must thoughtfully and inquisitively examine what genuinely defines novelty within a given context.