crane@fortune.UUCP (John Crane) (01/28/84)
I received numerous replies to my article about readability. Most
respondants agreed with every point except the idea of text justification.
Fine. As I mentioned, the fmt filter evens out your lines so they don't
look SO RAGGED, but it DOES NOT JUSTIFY. OK so we won't justify because
some people feel that it is hard on their eyes.
However, readability goes way beyond format and into writing style. I am
quoting verbatim below one response I received, not only because I think
its good, but because I agree with him.
===========================================================================
START OF QUOTE:
John,
Bravo! It's good to see an occasional thoughtful reminder that we
have other equipment to think with than our feet.
As a member of the writing profession, it particularly galls me to
watch the technical cadre of our country slobbering all over their
terminals.
We're at a time when research budgets (e.g. NASA) have been eviscerated
and the uneducated technophobes on the news programs are continuing to tell
us that "hackers" are criminals.
We need every ounce of credibility in order to convince the unwashed,
beer guzzling, football-mesmerized public, and the legislative lampreys
who pander to them that what we are doing is somehow *really worth it*.
Regards,
Carl Hoffmeyer - WB2YHE - Technical Editor - AT&T Information Systems
END OF QUOTE
==========================================================================
Then I received another message with I will also quote verbatim. It
was directed to me, but we can all probably benefit from what he had
to say.
===========================================================================
START OF QUOTE:
I found your message very annoyingly presented. If there is one thing
I can't stand, it is people who use justified text in a computer message.
It makes it rather hard to read. Justified text is designed to
make a piece of paper look nice. It has value in making a long
document look more professional. It has NO PLACE in computer messages
which are read on a computer. Especially if the line is formatted to
be more than a readable 60 characters long.
Lines longer than this are difficult to read on the average terminal
screen because the eye has to constantly jump back and forth too much.
Inserting extra spaces to justify only makes it worse.
Filling is a different story, and that can be used well in computer
messages.
Please think about how valid your comments were, and post a retraction
if you agree.
And your article didn't belong in net.general of course, but nobody
seems to pay any attention to that any more, so I doubt complaining
will do much good there.
END OF QUOTE
==========================================================================
I am going to translate the above article into terms which convey the same
meaning and which attack the methodology and not the person.
===========================================================================
START OF TRANSLATION:
The presentation of your message annoyed me. If there is one thing I can't
stand, it is justified text in a computer message. It makes it rather hard
to read. Justified text is designed to make a piece of paper look nice.
It has value in making a long document look more professional. It has NO
PLACE in computer messages which are read on a computer. Especially if the
line is formatted to be more than a readable 60 characters long.
Lines longer than this are difficult to read on the average terminal screen
because the eye has to constantly jump back and forth too much. Inserting
extra spaces to justify only makes it worse. Filling is a different story,
and that can be used well in computer messages.
After reading this, couldn't you agree that justified lines don't belong
on cmoputer messages. If so, why not post another article and clarify
yourself on this point.
END OF TRANSLATION
==========================================================================
Now I ask all of you. How did the pre-translated message make you feel?
Pissed off? Defensive? Annoyed? Didn't the second message convey the
same meaning but in a less abrasive way? Little too much sugar and spice
to your liking? Well, if you wrote it, you could phrase it your way.
The point I am making is that we are supposed to be professionals. When we
communicate, it has to:
1. Say something significant (most agree with this).
2. Look presentable at the very least (see 1st readability memo).
3. Deal in ideas and facts, not personalities.
Thank You,
John R. Crane
Fortune Systems Corp.