greg@utcsri.UUCP (Gregory Smith) (01/21/87)
In article <1145@rti-sel.UUCP> rcb@rti-sel.UUCP (Random) writes: >Before any of you might laugh, the other day, I was taking some notes and >I had to stop and think how to make a capital cursive "G". And of course >my handwriting has always been awful even before computers. Has anyone >else noticed this problem? Yes. I have a G in may name. One day when I was about fourteen, I took a good hard look at this alleged cursive uppercase "G", and decided that if it looked like a G, I was Idi Amin's grandmother. I now sign my name using a G which looks a bit like a large, somewhat degenerated '6', and which may or may not be joined to the following letter. I encourage everyone else in the world to do likewise so that this ugly thing (the alleged G) can be eliminated once and for all. Some years later, I made a concerted effort to write my letters separately rather than joining them all up. As a result, my handwriting improved to the point where other people can almost always read it !! Before this, I always had trouble with words like 'minimum', which came out something like a highly distorted sine wave, and I had to count cycles to find out where the dots on the i's went. Personally I feel that the 'italic' style of writing is more efficient than cursive script, since it requires a smaller number of strokes. The 'joining' strokes which are eliminated in this method do not contribute to legibility, and actually degrade legibility unless they are very well placed (cf. 'minimum') Any comment on this? I feel that children should not be forced to write using a a cursive script; they should be free to use either the cursive method or the italic method, whichever seems best for them. Signatures, however, are best done in a cursive manner with as many 'useless' joining strokes as is practical, since this extra redundant information makes forging difficult. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Smith University of Toronto UUCP: ..utzoo!utcsri!greg Have vAX, will hack...
cdshaw@alberta.UUCP (01/24/87)
In article <3968@utcsri.UUCP> greg@utcsri.UUCP (Gregory Smith) writes: >Yes. I have a G in may name. One day when I was about fourteen, I took a >good hard look at this alleged cursive uppercase "G", and decided that >if it looked like a G, I was Idi Amin's grandmother. I now sign my name >using a G which looks a bit like a large, somewhat degenerated '6', and >which may or may not be joined to the following letter. I encourage >everyone else in the world to do likewise so that this ugly thing (the >alleged G) can be eliminated once and for all. Well, no, maybe not... The relation between cursive script and "printed" block-letter stuff is quite simple to spot. Basically, the cursive letters (esp capitals) are reasonable distortions of the block letters. I have a capital S in my last name. If you connect the top (start) of the S with the bottom, you get &, only backwards. Pretty obvious, really, but there was a time where the relations between the letters in cursive & non-cursive form made no sense to me. It took a long time for me to get the cursive capital Q, since it looked for all the world like a funny "2". Anyway, about the only time I use cursive capitals is with my signature. When I was about 14 or so, I had had enough about people hassling me for unreadable handwriting, so I started writing (by no means exclusively) in the block capitals I learned from drafting class. My handwriting today (10 years later) is a highly stylized form of these same "stick-letters". I still stick to the "usual" handwriting for lower-case letters, however, so my writing is a mix between my special hybrid-block capitals and the normal cursive lower case forms. Of course, this leads to: >I always had trouble with words like 'minimum', which came >out something like a highly distorted sine wave, and I had to count cycles >to find out where the dots on the i's went. > >Personally I feel that the 'italic' style of writing is more efficient >than cursive script, since it requires a smaller number of strokes. The >'joining' strokes which are eliminated in this method do not contribute >to legibility, and actually degrade legibility unless they are very well >placed (cf. 'minimum') Well, I doubt that the efficiency argument is true, since you are lifting your pen between letters, but your "italic" is possibly more readable than your cursive. Actually, I read a book on handwriting analysis once, which had all sorts of examples of strange/beautiful scribbling. One thing which I took to heart was that tossing in block capitals instead of cursive ones was an indicator of intelligence (some kind of ego boost, anyway). The point being that these nonstandard forms do make sense, and are quite traditional in the sense that lots of people have done them in the past. >Any comment on this? I feel that children should not be forced to write >using a cursive script; they should be free to use either the cursive >method or the italic method, whichever seems best for them. Well, what's the purpose of teaching? To get the standards set for everyone, I would say. The point of cursive is that you don't have to lift your pen up, and most people can write readably with it. Then again, I use troff a lot, so who cares? >Signatures, however, are best done in a cursive manner with as many >'useless' joining strokes as is practical, since this extra redundant >information makes forging difficult. Another reason why cursive should be taught. >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Greg Smith University of Toronto UUCP: ..utzoo!utcsri!greg >Have vAX, will hack... -- Chris Shaw cdshaw@alberta University of Alberta CatchPhrase: Bogus as HELL !
ajs@hpfcdt.UUCP (01/24/87)
> Do people who use a keyboard almost exclusively ... begin to forget > how to write with a pencil/pen, or get worse at it? That is my experience. Like anything else, what you don't use, slowly atrophies (in the mental sense, you forget how). My handwriting never was great. I suspect there's a correlation between bad penmanship and eventual comfort using a typewriter/terminal instead. Woe unto all those throwbacks who write prettily! Alan Silverstein
sjrapaport@watcgl.UUCP (01/25/87)
]One thing which I took to heart ]was that tossing in block capitals instead of cursive ones was an indicator ]of intelligence (some kind of ego boost, anyway). Hey! I'm intelligent! I just thought I was lazy! -steve
bobmon@iuvax.UUCP (01/25/87)
greg@utcsri.UUCP (Gregory Smith) writes: > [...] >Personally I feel that the 'italic' style of writing is more efficient >than cursive script, since it requires a smaller number of strokes. The >'joining' strokes which are eliminated in this method do not contribute >to legibility, and actually degrade legibility unless they are very well >placed (cf. 'minimum') > [...] Once upon a time (in a galaxy far, far away?) people were taught to write much more carefully than they are now. With sufficient practice and care, I think that cursive writing can go faster than 'italic' (basically printing each letter) and can contribute to better spelling, etc. because you tend to write _words_ rather than series of individual letters. It also has the advantage that it minimizes the number of times you have to jab your quill pen into the paper -- each time causing a little blobbing of ink and smashing the point a little bit. Cursive script gives a much more uniform ink flow if you can control the pen motion, which you can with practice. To take a slight conceptual leap, I think that good cursive writing, and the need for it, have been obviated by the advent of ball-point pens and keyboards.
ggw@ethos.UUCP (01/27/87)
In article <195@pembina.alberta.UUCP> cdshaw@pembina.UUCP (Chris Shaw) writes: >In article <3968@utcsri.UUCP> greg@utcsri.UUCP (Gregory Smith) writes: [Discussion about handwriting styles] > I had had enough about people hassling me for unreadable >handwriting, so I started writing (by no means exclusively) in the block >capitals I learned from drafting class. My handwriting today (10 years >later) is a highly stylized form of these same "stick-letters". > I, too, went through the hassles of having teachers and other folk screaming about illegible handwriting, usually because I wrote too small. My solution was to develop a semi-italic hand that also uses some stylistic variations to reduce pen motion. Nowadays, people reading my writing, which I can do quite rapidly and legibly, comment on the clearness and beauty of it. If I feel like it, I can still do a cursive script, but its definitly not a Spencerian hand. In reference to the INPUT DEVICE discussion, I don't really touch- type, but still manage to average "60 wpm" by using a burst mode of typing. This gets to be a slight problem when dealing with a variety of different keyboards and machines as I tend to get ahead of some which have a small rollover buffer. One novel input device to be considered might be based on an electro-myographic technique that tracks muscle group movements in some part of the upper or forearm. Such a device could be of great benefit for people who have lost the use of fingers or hands, but still have the muscles in place that used to flex and/or extend them. -- ------------------------------------------ Gregory G. Woodbury The usual disclaimers apply System Manager, DUKCDS - Duke Univ Ctr for Demographic Studies {duke|mcnc|rti-sel}!ethos!ggw The line eater is a boojum snark!
jc@cdx39.UUCP (01/28/87)
> > Some years later, I made a concerted effort to write my letters > separately rather than joining them all up. As a result, my handwriting > improved to the point where other people can almost always read it !! > > Personally I feel that the 'italic' style of writing is more efficient > than cursive script, since it requires a smaller number of strokes. Well, I adopted Italic script when I was about 22, and I've never regretted the couple hours it took to get it into my subconscious. It has been widely believed (and occasionally even documented) among calligraphers that this script is the most "efficient" form of the Roman alphabet yet devised. What is mean by "efficient" is either of the following equivalent facts: 1) For a given speed of writing, Italic produces the most legible result; 2) For a given level of legibility, Italic can be written the fastest. If you have a pen with an Italic point, the efficiency is especially noticeable. You can also convert most of the "fiber-tipped" pens to italic by using a fine knife blade to cut the tip to a wedge. If you do this, you have to keep the pen away from others, because they'll rapidly destroy it in the process of trying to get it to write. I've read several places that the American longhand taught in our grade schools is historically a "degenerate" Italic, with extra curves, unnecessary connectives, backtracking, and form changes to fit in with the connected style of writing. I found that the hardest thing to teach myself to do was to make the lower-case 'e' with two strokes. At first, this seems somewhat counter-intuitive and clumsy. After a while, I came to understand that it is in fact a net benefit. The explanation is the effects of the longhand 'e' on adjacent letters. One thing that's sort of fun is sending hastily-scribbled notes to people, hearing them remark on the nice handwriting, and tell them that it's nothing special; I could do much better if I were taking care to write well. It's also sort of fun to tell them that they could learn to write legibly with just a few hours effort, knowing full well that few people ever will. I suspect that many people identify with their own handwriting; learning a new script would violate their self-image. But maybe I'm being overly psychological here. -- John M Chambers Phone: 617/364-2000x7304 Email: ...{adelie,bu-cs,harvax,inmet,mcsbos,mit-eddie,mot[bos]}!cdx39!{jc,news,root,usenet,uucp} Smail: Codex Corporation; Mailstop C1-30; 20 Cabot Blvd; Mansfield MA 02048-1193 Clever-Saying: Uucp me out of here, Scotty; there's no AI on this node!
jc@cdx39.UUCP (01/30/87)
> > > Do people who use a keyboard almost exclusively ... begin to forget > > how to write with a pencil/pen, or get worse at it? > > That is my experience. Like anything else, what you don't use, slowly > atrophies (in the mental sense, you forget how). Nonsense. I usually type, but when I pick up a writing implement, I find it quite easy to produce legible writing. Frankly, I doubt if there are many people who have gone all-electronic and no longer handle pens or pencils. Furthermore, I recently picked up my sax, after neglecting it for several years. The fingering came back instantly. Of course, the old embouchure muscles were a bit flabby and tired rapidly, but the knowledge was certainly there. > ... My handwriting never was great. Aha! The truth emerges. (:-) -- John M Chambers Phone: 617/364-2000x7304 Email: ...{adelie,bu-cs,harvax,inmet,mcsbos,mit-eddie,mot[bos]}!cdx39!{jc,news,root,usenet,uucp} Smail: Codex Corporation; Mailstop C1-30; 20 Cabot Blvd; Mansfield MA 02048-1193 Clever-Saying: Uucp me out of here, Scotty; there's no AI on this node!
michael@crlt.UUCP (02/22/87)
[I know there's a line eater, 'cause I've seen its droppings.} Regarding the contention that block printing is a sign of intelligence - I can see at least two ways that would develop. First, people who have taken drafting courses (self included) tend to switch to block for clarity, and such courses tend to be taught in college, so the students have been pre-sorted for what is publicly interpreted as "intelligence", and spend years of intensive study of skills that amount to "looking smart". Second, people who are mentally active and flexible will often find the handwriting they've been taught illegible, and make changes in it to solve the problem, while the "clods", if they recognize the problem at all, will not think of it as soluble, or only as soluble by "practicing harder" with the form of script they've been taught. In article <621@cdx39.UUCP>, jc@cdx39.UUCP (John Chambers) writes: > > Well, I adopted Italic script when I was about 22, and I've never > regretted the couple hours it took to get it into my subconscious. You've sold me, I want to try it. Can you give me a pointer to a good book (or teacher) on the subject - preferably the one you used, since your results were so good? =========================================================================== "I've got code in my node." | UUCP: ...!ihnp4!itivax!node!michael | AUDIO: (313) 973-8787 Michael McClary | SNAIL: 2091 Chalmers, Ann Arbor MI 48104 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Above opinions are the official position of McClary Associates. Customers may have opinions of their own, which are given all the attention paid for. ===========================================================================