Really appreciate you commenting. Thanks

“with time but no money”

A person who has an inordinate amount of time can produce a first draft which they have meticulously edited, forced upon friends, forgotten, reworked, abandoned, retrieved and wholly reworked. A “first draft” for these individuals might take a decade or two to produce. When you are your own editor, your own audience and your own critic, there is no distinction between each of the versions that exist within this time. They are all part of one mushy shade of grey. The “first draft” is your own best work.

However, if you’re interested in a form of publishing which is even moderately efficient, you may consider working with other people. There are certainly typos in this brief comment. Even an unskilled editor is more likely to catch them quickly than I am, simply because they are not the author of these words. If you have “time but no money” your entire effort is effectively a first draft.

Writing with the intent of publication with time but no money, however, is stupid.

I agree that we need more data on the contribution that multi-media adds to the reading experience. As we discussed at the e-learning event we both attended some time ago, many people want the “shiny, new object” just because…even though the evidence is scant that making learning electronic and with all the knobs and whistles actually enhances the learning experience. Emotionally for some, perhaps, but — as you say — we’re a long way off understanding what works and doesn’t – and why.

With regard to the perception that consumers want books to be more dynamic, I’d like to see more data. If the information lends itself to being experienced better with media-rich content, then by all means, please enhance the experience! But let’s try to identify through research what works and doesn’t work and why. My experience and intuition tell me that many factors probably influence this.