gerlekm@merrimack.edu (11/12/90)
Help -
Some time ago, on one of these groups, yet another discussion occurred
on whether programs should be coded in upper or lower or even mixed
case letters. Someone claimed that lower case was better, because our
eyes are more trained ("used to") to lowercase letters -- does anyone
have a reference for this, or any related studies?
One of my profs thinks I'm making this up, and I need proof :-)
Thnaks in advance.
[ M.P.Gerlek, Wanna-Be At Large
[ Disclaimer: Yes, Mom, I'll play nice.
[ {uunet,bbn,ulowell}!samsung!hubdub!mpg
[ "Speaker-to-workstations."parks@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (11/16/90)
>Some time ago, on one of these groups, yet another discussion occurred >on whether programs should be coded in upper or lower or even mixed >case letters. Someone claimed that lower case was better, because our >eyes are more trained ("used to") to lowercase letters -- does anyone >have a reference for this, or any related studies? Well, I haven't a reference for this, but, hey, this is alt.FOLKLORE.computers, so why should I let a lack of hard facts slow me down. :^) The way I remember the story, IBM did a study on the comparative readabilities of upper- and lower-case text. It was found that lower- case text was the more readable, so they figured to do everything in lower-case (this would have been in the days of card punchers 8-O and those had but one case available). The punch-line (heh heh) to this story is that someone asked what they would do for the word "God". ZAP! Better to have GOD than god, so EVERYTHING will be done in upper- case. Camden "Snake-Oil" Parks
new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) (11/16/90)
>Someone claimed that lower case was better, because our >eyes are more trained ("used to") to lowercase letters Actually, I think it is more because the lowercase letters have more variance between them, not because we are more used to them. For example, t and i are much more different than T and I. Similarly for e/f and E/F and so on. Words like "different" can be recognised just by the shape of the letters without actually looking at all the letters themselves, and this leads to greater reading speed. I also remember hearing that this is the reason for ligatures. -- Darren -- --- Darren New --- Grad Student --- CIS --- Univ. of Delaware --- ----- Network Protocols, Graphics, Programming Languages, Formal Description Techniques (esp. Estelle), Coffee, Amigas ----- =+=+=+ Let GROPE be an N-tuple where ... +=+=+=
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (11/17/90)
parks@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU writes: > Well, I haven't a reference for this, but, hey, this is > alt.FOLKLORE.computers, so why should I let a lack of hard facts slow > me down. :^) Fair warning. (Well, one of the two targets is ...folklore...) > The way I remember the story, IBM did a study on the comparative > readabilities of upper- and lower-case text. It was found that lower- > case text was the more readable,... AArrgghhh!!! Why do the legends always have it that IBM invented/discover- ed/studied everything??? It's long-established knowledge in typography that lower case is more readable...it probably far predates IBM's very existence. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 Cellular phones: more deadly than marijuana.
dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) (11/18/90)
In article <1990Nov17.013754.10134@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >parks@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU writes: >> The way I remember the story, IBM did a study on the comparative >> readabilities of upper- and lower-case text. It was found that lower- >> case text was the more readable,... > >AArrgghhh!!! Why do the legends always have it that IBM invented/discover- >ed/studied everything??? > >It's long-established knowledge in typography that lower case is more >readable...it probably far predates IBM's very existence. Exactly. Thanks Dick. As a matter of fact, this arcane knowledge predates the invention of moveable type. What we call "lower case" letters are the calligraphic descendents of the old Roman capitals you see on government buildings. In the centuries- long battle between legibility and space efficiency, legibility finally won when paper became cheap, and the *most legible* standard hands (humanist bookhand and Italic) were used as the models for most European type designs. (The big exception was Germany, where the illegible Fraktur script was used). What we call upper-case letters are the descendants of versal initials, adapted to conform to the style of a particular lower-case hand (*not* the other way around). It would have been unthinkable, in the 15th century, to set text in all upper-case letters for more than one or two words. -- David M. Tate | Concord and time, each needeth each: dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | The ripest fruit hangs where not one "A Man for all Seasonings" | But only two can reach. scapegoat-at-large | --William Plomer, "Gloriana"
floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) (11/18/90)
In article <61679@unix.cis.pitt.edu> dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes: >In article <1990Nov17.013754.10134@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >>parks@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU writes: >>> The way I remember the story, IBM did a study on the comparative >>> readabilities of upper- and lower-case text. It was found that lower- >>> case text was the more readable,... >> >>AArrgghhh!!! Why do the legends always have it that IBM invented/discover- >>ed/studied everything??? >> >>It's long-established knowledge in typography that lower case is more >>readable...it probably far predates IBM's very existence. > >Exactly. Thanks Dick. > No. The point got missed. The fact that something was discovered/ invented/researched to death or whatever some hundreds of years ago certainly would not stop IBM from discovering/inventing/researching it to death again, and 1) finding the truth was true, and 2) doing it the wrong way anyway. (Sorry for the IBM bashing, but 1) its fun, and 2) that was the point of the original post... IMHO). Floyd -- Floyd L. Davidson floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu floydd@chinet.chi.il.us Salcha, AK 99714 connected by paycheck to Alascom, Inc. When *I* speak for them, one of us will be *out* of business in a hurry.
greg@hoss.unl.edu (Hammer T. H.) (11/19/90)
... parks@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU forgets to attribute the following: >>Some time ago, on one of these groups, yet another discussion occurred >>on whether programs should be coded in upper or lower or even mixed >>case letters. Someone claimed that lower case was better, because our >>eyes are more trained ("used to") to lowercase letters -- does anyone >>have a reference for this, or any related studies? In writing ACOS code for my BBS, I have come to the decision on having all commands in lowercase and all variables in caps, public labels in caps, and regular labels in lowercase. To me it makes the code much more readable, much better than the programs I see where the programmer felt that every command must begin with a capital letter. Each language has its conventions. Pascal for having constants in CAPS and other variables in lower/mixed case. I even got into the habit of using different captialization of my begin and end statements. If it is the begin and end for the main program, they are BEGIN and END. If they are for procedures/functions, they are Begin and End, and otherwise as begin and end. Other things with Pascal I did was: procedure x (y, z: integer); Begin . : if ... then begin . : end else begin . : end; . : End; (* x *) I won't bother going into any other languages right now. I fell asleep after 3 AM last night with a can of C__e and a bag of D_____s. -- __ _____________ __ \ \_\ \__ __/ /_/ / "I'm working the Eight Minus Zero Shift..." \greg@hoss.unl.edu/ "Eight Minus Zero Shift?" \_\ \_\|_|/_/ /_/ "Yup, the Happiness Patrol."
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (11/20/90)
In article <61679@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes: > In article <1990Nov17.013754.10134@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >>parks@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU writes: >>> The way I remember the story, IBM did a study on the comparative >>> readabilities of upper- and lower-case text. It was found that lower- >>> case text was the more readable,... >> >>AArrgghhh!!! Why do the legends always have it that IBM invented/discover- >>ed/studied everything??? >> >>It's long-established knowledge in typography that lower case is more >>readable...it probably far predates IBM's very existence. I believe that what is known is that MIXED case, where the mixing is done according to the traditional rules, is what is most readable. (Just got caught by that comparative/superlative thing, oh well, leave it.) > > Exactly. Thanks Dick. > > As a matter of fact, this arcane knowledge predates the invention of moveable > type. What we call "lower case" letters are the calligraphic descendents of > the old Roman capitals you see on government buildings. In the centuries- > long battle between legibility and space efficiency, legibility finally won > when paper became cheap, and the *most legible* standard hands (humanist > bookhand and Italic) were used as the models for most European type designs. > (The big exception was Germany, where the illegible Fraktur script was used). > > What we call upper-case letters are the descendants of versal initials, adapted > to conform to the style of a particular lower-case hand (*not* the other way > around). It would have been unthinkable, in the 15th century, to set text in > all upper-case letters for more than one or two words. But, in the 15th century, everyone who was setting type knew something about setting type. It is amusing (or maybe, I should say, a great opportunity) to look at Computer Shopper (other rags have ads made by the same "art" students) and see the amount of money people waste on making it harder to read their ads. 1) Mixed case is MUCH easier to read. Let's set the most important part of our ad in all caps. 2) Serif typefaces are much easier to read than sans serif typefaces. (Notice all the little tails on the letters in any newspaper, or in any magazine that wants people to read the articles.) So we set our ad in a sans serif typeface (Helvetica is a favorite name). Serif typefaces are too ordinary (everybody uses them) and don't win art awards. 3) Black (or, marginally, dark) type on a low glare white background is much easier to read. There is always at least one ad set in white on black. Even worse is the advertiser who takes a color picture of his product with lots of detail and prints his ad in white type on top of the picture - it's called reducing the signal to noise ration. The person who designs the layout for most of the editorial material in a magazine wants people to read it and has a modicum of knowledge of what has been learned in the last four thousand years about readable typography (Analog keeps violating this on one or two first page of a story in each issue.). Ads seem to be designed by people who don't care whether anyone reads them. > > -- > David M. Tate | Concord and time, each needeth each: > dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | The ripest fruit hangs where not one > "A Man for all Seasonings" | But only two can reach. > scapegoat-at-large | --William Plomer, "Gloriana" dan herrick dlh Performance Marketing POBox 1419 Mentor, Ohio 44061 (216)974-9637 herrickd@astro.pc.ab.com
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (11/20/90)
In article <2070.2747dd14@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>, herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes: > In article <61679@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes: >> In article <1990Nov17.013754.10134@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >>>parks@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU writes: >>>> The way I remember the story, IBM did a study on the comparative >>>> readabilities of upper- and lower-case text. It was found that lower- >>>> case text was the more readable,... >>> >>>AArrgghhh!!! Why do the legends always have it that IBM invented/discover- >>>ed/studied everything??? >>> >>>It's long-established knowledge in typography that lower case is more >>>readable...it probably far predates IBM's very existence. > > I believe that what is known is that MIXED case, where the mixing is > done according to the traditional rules, is what is most readable. (Just > got caught by that comparative/superlative thing, oh well, leave it.) >> >> Exactly. Thanks Dick. I should have inserted my paragraph after this thanks addressed to someone else. >> >> As a matter of fact, this arcane knowledge predates the invention of moveable >> type. What we call "lower case" letters are the calligraphic descendents of >> the old Roman capitals you see on government buildings. In the centuries- >> long battle between legibility and space efficiency, legibility finally won >> when paper became cheap, and the *most legible* standard hands (humanist >> bookhand and Italic) were used as the models for most European type designs. >> (The big exception was Germany, where the illegible Fraktur script was used). >> >> What we call upper-case letters are the descendants of versal initials, adapted >> to conform to the style of a particular lower-case hand (*not* the other way >> around). It would have been unthinkable, in the 15th century, to set text in >> all upper-case letters for more than one or two words. > > But, in the 15th century, everyone who was setting type knew something > about setting type. It is amusing (or maybe, I should say, a great > opportunity) to look at Computer Shopper (other rags have ads made > by the same "art" students) and see the amount of money people waste > on making it harder to read their ads. > > 1) Mixed case is MUCH easier to read. Let's set the most important > part of our ad in all caps. > > 2) Serif typefaces are much easier to read than sans serif typefaces. > (Notice all the little tails on the letters in any newspaper, or > in any magazine that wants people to read the articles.) So we > set our ad in a sans serif typeface (Helvetica is a favorite name). > Serif typefaces are too ordinary (everybody uses them) and don't > win art awards. > > 3) Black (or, marginally, dark) type on a low glare white background > is much easier to read. There is always at least one ad set in > white on black. Even worse is the advertiser who takes a color > picture of his product with lots of detail and prints his ad in > white type on top of the picture - it's called reducing the signal > to noise ration. ^^^^^^ OOPS! Try "signal to noise ratio". > > The person who designs the layout for most of the editorial material > in a magazine wants people to read it and has a modicum of knowledge > of what has been learned in the last four thousand years about > readable typography (Analog keeps violating this on one or two first > page of a story in each issue.). Ads seem to be designed by people > who don't care whether anyone reads them. >> >> -- >> David M. Tate | Concord and time, each needeth each: >> dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | The ripest fruit hangs where not one >> "A Man for all Seasonings" | But only two can reach. >> scapegoat-at-large | --William Plomer, "Gloriana" > > dan herrick > dlh Performance Marketing > POBox 1419 > Mentor, Ohio 44061 > (216)974-9637 > herrickd@astro.pc.ab.com
dab@Oswego.EDU (David Alan Bozak) (11/29/90)
In article <20517.273e9e6b@merrimack.edu> gerlekm@merrimack.edu writes: >Help - > >Some time ago, on one of these groups, yet another discussion occurred >on whether programs should be coded in upper or lower or even mixed >case letters. Someone claimed that lower case was better, because our >eyes are more trained ("used to") to lowercase letters -- does anyone >have a reference for this, or any related studies? > >One of my profs thinks I'm making this up, and I need proof :-) >Thnaks in advance. > >[ M.P.Gerlek, Wanna-Be At Large >[ Disclaimer: Yes, Mom, I'll play nice. >[ {uunet,bbn,ulowell}!samsung!hubdub!mpg >[ "Speaker-to-workstations." It is true, in general. Upper case letters have a high degree of confusability - check most any good perception handbook and you will find a fair amount of research on this. There are simply few distinguishing features available to your perceptual system, especially relative to the larger number of features available in lower case (or mixed case). So lower case should be easier to read if your measurement is speed and accuracy. On the other hand, there are certainly other factors at work - perceptual set (expectations) and the like. Overall, however, for speed and accuracy (and likely less fatigue over time), lower case should be preferable. (I don't have references on reading at hand, but try D. E. Rumelhart, 1970, A multicomponent theory of perception of briefly exposed visual displays, _Journal of Mathematical Psychology_, volume 7, 191-218. That ought to get you to a better reference.) -dab /\ David Alan Bozak, Computer Science Department / \ SUNY College at Oswego, Oswego, NY 13126 (315) 341-2347 _____/____\_____ Internet: dab@rocky.oswego.edu / / \ \ or dab%rocky.oswego.edu@nisc.nyser.net /____/ \____\ UUCP: {cornell!devvax,rutgers!sunybcs}!oswego!rocky!dab
tomr@ashtate (Tom Rombouts) (12/04/90)
In article <1990Nov28.193148.1300@oswego.Oswego.EDU> dab@oswego.Oswego.EDU (David Alan Bozak) writes: >In article <20517.273e9e6b@merrimack.edu> gerlekm@merrimack.edu writes: >>Help - >> >>Some time ago, on one of these groups, yet another discussion occurred >>on whether programs should be coded in upper or lower or even mixed >>case letters. Someone claimed that lower case was better, because our >>eyes are more trained ("used to") to lowercase letters -- does anyone >>have a reference for this, or any related studies? >> >It is true, in general. Upper case letters have a high degree of >confusability - check most any good perception handbook and you will >find a fair amount of research on this. There are simply few My personal, entirely un-scientific opinion on this: In the xBASE world, source code traditionally appears in uppercase, although most implementations of the language are not case sensitive. Thus, I am quite familiar with this debate. Despite the various cited research, uppercase can be easier to read for the simple reason that since the letters are bigger, they can be read from a greater distance than the same text in lowercase. In a simple test that I just conducted, I could comfortably read all caps source on a printout from about 20", while for lowercase it had to be about 16" or closer. Thus, from this point of view, uppercase is more readable than lowercase. I am only posting this because this factor seems to be ignored in most discussions/debates on this topic, not to suggest that uppercase is better. Tom Rombouts Torrance Techie tomr@ashate.A-T.com V:(213)538-7108
ed@alt.dah.sub.org (Ed Braaten) (12/08/90)
tomr@ashtate (Tom Rombouts) writes: >My personal, entirely un-scientific opinion on this: >Despite the various cited research, uppercase can be easier to read >for the simple reason that since the letters are bigger, they can >be read from a greater distance than the same text in lowercase. If you are having trouble *seeing* your listings then maybe you should pass them through banner on their way to the printer... ;-) But seriously, reading is made easier by using a character set which can be easily perceived. As the research shows, using upper-case-only doesn't usually meet that goal for most people. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Braaten | "... Man looks at the outward appearance, Work: ed@de.intel.com | but the Lord looks at the heart." Home: ed@dah.sub.org | 1 Samuel 16:7b --------------------------------------------------------------------
wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) (12/12/90)
>>My personal, entirely un-scientific opinion on this: >As the research shows, using >upper-case-only doesn't usually meet that goal for most people. As an uppercase-only hater, I'd love to see the research. But despite the subject on the thread, I'm still looking for cites. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.....wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu & no one will talk to a host that's close............(305) 255-RTFM Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335 is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335