spaf@gatech.UUCP (01/18/84)
There was a major discussion on the Arpa newsletters about a year ago
concerning the use of right margin justification. Most of the studies
cited in that discussion concluded that right margin justification made
the text more difficult to read, even if it was more pleasing to the
eye. I don't happen to remember those references, but I'm sure someone
can find them, if necessary.
However, I do agree that proper use of paragraphs helps. Indentation of
some items is also helpful. Syntax does convey some useful information
(at least to me -- let's not get into a discussion about
syntax/semantics/pragmatics/whatever).
Try not to get too carried away -- this is a medium of words, not block
graphics. Arguments about whitespace are similar to arguments about
correct spelling and grammar. Pretty submissions are nice to have, but
let us not confuse form with content. The time and energy required to
format every submission to some aesthetic norm is more than most people
are willing (or able) to expend.
Finally, the slam at people using "ed" was not necessary. There
are dumb terminals and hardcopy terminals in use at many sites. It is
very difficult to use a screen editor when you don't have access to a
screen. People can produce extremely sloppy-looking submissions from
any kind of editor -- and often do. That doesn't make their comments
any less worth reading.
--
Off the Wall of Gene Spafford
The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf.GATech @ CSNet-Relay
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,rlgvax,sb1,unmvax,ulysses,ut-sally}!gatech!spafkeesan@bbncca.ARPA (Morris Keesan) (01/18/84)
-------------------------------
Re: justifying right margins.
There was some research done on this some time ago, which was mentioned in
the Arpanet Human-Nets Digest. Briefly, the results were that justifying right
margins appears not to improve readability, and can even impair readability.
Subjects tended to read as easily or more easily material with a ragged right
margin.
This matches my own experience, which is that the variation in spacing
necessary to achieve justification tends to interfere with the smooth flow of
the eye over the content. This is especially true in this medium, where there
is no variable sizing of spaces.
"Just because you can doesn't mean you should."
--
Morris M. Keesan
{decvax,linus,wjh12}!bbncca!keesan
keesan @ BBN-UNIX.ARPAPucc-H:aeq@CS-Mordred.UUCP (01/19/84)
Personally, I prefer ragged right margins on articles over the net. My reaction on seeing a justified article is "not another one of those silly affected things!" Anyway, I use a locally written screen editor that doesn't offer things like filters. However, I will concede that I am one of the reigning long-paragraph kings. My thoughts all come out in one gestalt, and that's the way they get typed. As many groups as I read (I'm seriously considering turning off net.politics), I don't have time to write ORGANIZED articles. The net should not have to live up to the same standards as documentation. Anyway, your article itself commented that the net was one of the last bastions of free expression. Aren't you contradicting yourself? Given that, and also given the tone of your article, it might ALMOST have been better to post it to net.flame. -- Jeff Sargent/...pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq
stevens@inuxh.UUCP (01/19/84)
> Pretty submissions are nice to have, but let us not confuse form > with content. The time and energy required to Fine. But let us also not obscure content with poor form! -- Scott Stevens AT&T Consumer Products Laboratories Indianapolis, Indiana, USA UUCP: inuxh!stevens
ntt@dciem.UUCP (Mark Brader) (01/20/84)
bbncca!keesan (Morris Keesan) writes:
There was some research done on this some time ago, which was
mentioned in the Arpanet Human-Nets Digest. Briefly, the results were
that justifying right margins appears not to improve readability, and
can even impair readability. Subjects tended to read as easily or more
easily material with a ragged right margin.
This matches my own experience, which is that the variation in
spacing necessary to achieve justification tends to interfere with the
smooth flow of the eye over the content. This is especially true in
this medium, where there is no variable sizing of spaces.
Perhaps it is simply a variation between readers, but *I* definitely do
not find ragged-right type more readable, and the reason is that I *can't find
the paragraph breaks*. The conventional symbol for a new paragraph is,
after all, *a line that is not justified against the right margin* followed
by an indented line. It is true that a whole blank line between paragraphs
solves this, but that's simply too much whitespace for my taste.
All this is much more true, for me, in typeset text rather than
fixed-char-width text such as you are now reading. Actually, I would say that
on my own screen I find it pretty close to a toss-up. But in typeset matter
my complaint stands. Try it yourself. Compare the new-style CACM (who quoted
the same research and punned that "ragged right is justified") with a newspaper
or another magazine that uses narrow columns.
So if that's how I feel, why is *this* item ragged-right, and
with blank lines between paragraphs? Because it seems to be the convention
for netnews, whether reasonable or not, and reading one item that doesn't
follow the convention is simply jarring.
Mark ("but I know what I like") Bradermat@hou5d.UUCP (01/21/84)
> Don't some of you people know what W H I T E S P A C E is? > > How about breaking up some of the long paragraphs? How about > evening up some of those right margins? > > A tab or return is only one character. Will you really > begrudge your reader a little less eyestrain as the cost of > more machine and storage efficiency? It's no longer true that > machine time or most costly than that of human beings? > > This memo is written with the Rand editor and so has a built-in > text justification feature. If you are using this program put > the cursor somewhere in a paragraph and type: Yup. I know what whitespace is. I also know that there are only 24 lines on most screens, and I'll be damned if I am going to write off the first 10 % of each line so that you can see more empty screen. And I DON'T LIKE margins that are justified by adding arbitrary numbers of fixed-width spaces. I especially don't like same when the spacing is badly done, as it was in your article. I can FEEL the flames on that last statement, but I let it stand. What bugs me is the article that is written and not proofread for sensibility. Articles that go to no point, or that start at a point and go everywhichway are irritating to read. They make you suspect that the author has SOMETHING to say, but isn't willing to take the time to make it clear for you. Or perhaps hasn't figured it out for himself. Perhaps it's not worth his time, but is is worth ours, or he wouldn't post it. Here is a second pet peeve: the individuals who insist that what they have to say is so important that they can't bother to use a shift key when typing. I know a blind author of net articles who reads his terminal with a voice synthesizer. Capitalization is useless to him, but his articles are perfectly capitalized for the benefit of his readers. We use almost every conceivable cue in reading; capitalization is an important cue. Don't cut out half your voice before speaking to us! Mark Terribile hou5d!mat
marcum@fortune.UUCP (01/23/84)
There is a tremendous difference in readability of justified text between fixed-pitch and variable-pitch fonts. A variable-pitch font (including variable-sized spaces) can still have even spacing between words when both margins are justified. This is a tad difficult with a fixed-pitch font. When reading typeset text (variable-pitch fonts), I prefer justified right margins; when reading non-typeset (fixed-pitch fonts), I prefer non-justified right margins, with filled lines. Finally, regarding here-is-a-new-paragraph symbols, I've found that a blank line followed by an indented line to be perfectly readable. Alan M. Marcum Fortune Systems, Redwood City, California ...!hplabs!hpda!fortune!rhino!marcum
wombat@uicsl.UUCP (01/24/84)
#R:bbncca:-49300:uicsl:4400003:000:375
uicsl!wombat Jan 23 13:48:00 1984
***** uicsl:net.followup / dciem!ntt / 7:22 am Jan 21, 1984
The conventional symbol for a new paragraph is,
after all, *a line that is not justified against the right margin* followed
by an indented line.
Mark ("but I know what I like") Brader
----------
Is this person serious? Does this mean that there were no paragraphs
among the commoners before nroff?
Wombatmarla@ssc-vax.UUCP (01/27/84)
[] I agree with you about white spaces, HOWEVER, right justification, while looking prettier from a distance is harder to read. The extra spaces between words causes the eye to skip randomly. The exception to this is micro spaced test, where all the letters are spaced out in even increments (like in printed books). I have seen very few computer crt's that could do it. Marla S. Baer ssc-vax!marla
faunt@hplabsc.UUCP (Doug Faunt) (01/27/84)
There was a message not to long back that had been justified, and because of the circunstances, ended up roughly like this. I only exaggerate a little bit.
jaap@haring.UUCP (02/04/84)
Ahhhh, readability. Legibility is probably a better word. Quoting from "An essay on typography", of Gill (from the Gill sans-serif), and likely incorrect since I don't have the book by hand: ``An argument in favour of (right-) justified text is the observation that trained readers tend to scan and so read a text in a boustrophidonical manner, and are capable to read right to left as long as the text isn't too complicated. This is also true for unjustified text, as long as the differences in the length of the lines are small. Too much difference on the other hand, will disturb the smooth eye movements, and will make the text more difficult to read (or scan).'' Well, it looks like another religious discussion is popping up in this group, just like wombat's, creationists, waterbeds etc. If we have beaten this horse to death, we can start to fight about the ``advantages'' of sand-serif fonts. I suggest we move this discussion to net.text. Seems the right place for this, (waterbeds to net.rec, creationists to net.religion or /dev/null). Jaap Akkerhuis (mcvax!jaap)