The article on Minimal Computing suggests using only the technologies that are necessary and sufficient for developing digital humanities scholarship under constrained environments. While I agree with the rationale, I believe the issues are more nuanced.

In the article, the authors cite the example of WordPress versus a static site generator. They argue that WordPress was the right choice–while sacrificing security and maintenance–was easier to use. This example was presented as a binary but glossed over nuanced discussion of the tradeoffs. Rather than a binary choice between static sites or WordPress, creative solutions like automating file uploads to Jekyll sites can achieve simplicity for users while enabling flexibility. More than focusing on the specific technologies used, the focus should be on balancing complexity strategically.

Considerations beyond technical access are also crucial, including literacy, cultural norms, and geography. Framing minimalism solely as a reaction to technology maximalism overlooks contextual factors and imaginative space in between. Discussions should revolve around project objectives and community priorities.

Technology can organize information, reduce labor, and enhance access. A minimalist approach suits some scenarios but may miss opportunities. Thoughtfully applied technology can spotlight complexity and access as needed.

Dwelling on “what do we need? what do we have? what must we prioritize? and what are we willing to give up?” limits the discussion on what is possible. More open, future-minded conversations around possibilities better serve identifying genuine requirements. Neither maximalism nor minimalism is universally optimal and in digital spaces, a more open, considered approach might be more constructive.