hey Bluefrog,
thanks. This kind of summing-up and reacting reflection is appreciated.
I see that as one of the core take-aways. And it is a reasonable 'meta-'argument. I think indeed every app has it´s character (and characters 
) – and that is ultimately a good thing. And simply something one better takes into account and acknowledges when dealing with complex apps. (And certainly DT has a lot of cores and strengths… )
This goes to the core of the argument (‘architectural’ logic). And this is what I would indeed debate and contest to some extent.
First of all there is metadata in non-textual documents. And surely ‘metadata’ is not an aspect alien to the DT-horizon and architecture. – Consider the way DT itself acknowledges this in principle; e.g. importing / indexing of existing documents; importing some of the IPTC (text-)metadata from images(!); but also DTs many affordances to input, manipulate and work with metadata alongside ‘body-text’).
One thing I think safe to say is that this ‘mode of textual hybridity’ (– text in the human-readable body of documents; other textual metadata, human readable, interactionable or not…) is a base-feature/-reality of current day (digital) documents. With that in sight and contrasting of text vs. video (image / audio) gets … complex. Especially if one considers DT on it´s own terms (document handling vs. simple ‘note taking’ etc.)
– In my view out of the multiple functional universes that DT serves (and it is a master at that), you are restricting discussion with this particular framing of your example to the mental space / scenario of notetaking (or something in that realm…).
Then there were in the course of the relevant threads here 'like three’ – by-and-large unadressed – arguments – also challenging this equation on different bases:
-
there are more and more ways to input text alongside timebased media (see YT- and podcast chapters; see subtitles and closed captions; see ‘special’ (research) software like Kyno, or even FinalCut and metadata / keywords / markers etc.). Also there is growing, more specialized base for this in more specific research-centric domains (… up to attorneys, and script writers). It is rather a question of how to evaluate this trend.
– Again, as to the somewhat ecclectic way DT-as-is already acknowledges this: YT chapters are recognized and imported! (– even though I still do not understand on what technical protocoll :-}). Also take PDFs: PDFs were (and to some extent still are) image / design based to a large degree. What is DT response in that particular case? It implements OCR!! – So this definitely – to me – is a rather pro-active channeling into the direction of ‘text-culture’. (Which, functionally, I like btw. I am not against ‘text’
) -
… brings to the second point that was raised in this (or the ‘sibling-thread’): it is possible by now to do automated transcription. and actually we see that all over the internet by now, certainly in more professional / enterpreneurial realms. As to that there was @AW2307 point that autotranscription really is something (like OCR) that could be considered (at least conceptually) – see [here]. (Interested in your scenarios / experiences around timeline related documents / knowledge (audio / video) - #2 by AW2307)
-
related to the third point raised… as, lastly, there is certainly the trend of bringing text as automatic / ‘natural’ augment to video (and audio) ‘consumer’ platforms. again, see YT-example, vimeo following, chapter and note culture in audio platforms and apps (like soundcloud, or in the better podcast apps).
So, I really do appreciate you getting to the conceptional core of it, and follow through. But I think your reaction also shows the (unacknowledged) ambivalencies as they exist, even within DT: your example excludes images totally, which are put into DT regularly I suppose (and are also regularly discussed here). It omits some of DT reals ‘core strengths’ and programmatics (like OCR; IPTC support, native time based references etc.).
I surely don´t think it´s an active form of 'not wanting to ”keep up with the times”’ :-). I am also acknowledging this is all strategic decision stuff. but I think to ”keep up with the times”’ one has to have open ears, and eyes, and a culture of attentive discussion in relation to tectonic shift and evolutions. (DT itself is a child of the transition from print to digital text, I guess). I think things like OCR for PDF while not adressing auto-transcription even conceptually is a sign of some bias. (That is not to beat this over anyones head, of course…)
In that spirit I thank you for your response here. As you see, in the end I ‘personally’ think a reductionist narrative of text-files vs other media-files doesn´t hold very long if going into the matter (and into DT itself), neither conceptually, nor in terms of document culture development, nor review of DT-genealogy itself…
But I would never argue with decisions made by others about what ‘core strengths’, ‘profiles’ etc. they want to give their app (project). For sure.
So, in some way as you might see, what I am calling for is some more serious and open ‘accounting’ and systematic reflection – while not leaving DT´s grounds, aspirations, or premises…
So, thanks for getting to it…!