atw: Re: Tell the U.S. Marines to Getz Tuft [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

I see we are reviving the 'culture wars' again. It's interesting how 
people addicted to the 'scientific' viewpoint are so ready to write off 
people's emotions because they don't fit into their models.  We can't 
quantify or measure what it means to 'fall in love' or to enjoy something, 
so anyone who mentions these aspects is abused as lacking 'scientific 
rigour' and the concepts are denigrated as not worthy of attention. 

Another way of looking at it would be that the scientific models aren't 
good enough. But that's scientific heresy, and suggesting that is almost 
as reprehensible as it once was to question the religious models of the 
world that were then in fashion. And to admit that the shortcomings might 
be in the scientists' purview is now as bad as it once was to question the 
priests' entitlement to their elevated status in their community. Better 
to chide people who mention these 'vague, emotional concepts' for their 
'immaturity' - they just have to learn to ignore these coarse emotions as 
we have. 

However, if I 'really like' a font, or even fall in love with it, I don't 
like being told that that experience is not worth anything. Efficiency 
isn't everything, though some people seem to be so brainwashed by 
rationalism that they really believe that. 

Admit that your 'scientific studies' only tell us part of the story and 
you demonstrate the real 'open mind' that scientists like to think they 
have.

Oh dear, Michael G is going to hate me for sending this! 
 
Howard




Peter Martin <peterm_5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
24/10/2007 04:15 PM
Please respond to
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


To
<austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Subject
atw: Re: Tell the U.S. Marines to Getz Tuft [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]






Michael Lewis:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:37:00 +1000,  you wrote:
> Peter Martin:
>
>> Every time this topic comes up, (as it does regularly) I run a pile of 
Google and
>> other searches looking for something that updates Wheildon.   I've yet 
to find
>> anything that approaches his work.   But <sigh> here goes again... 
Anyone got an
>> alternative yet ?
>>
>
> Not me. In fact, even Karen Schriver (_Dynamics in Document Design_, 
Wiley, 1997)
> relies chiefly on readers' aesthetic preferences. She does indicate that 
serif body
> text "may" be more "readable", but -- quite legitimately -- suggests 
that cultural and
> other factors might be at work.

Yeah but sorry, we could all die "wondering".   What people say they like 
and what they
actually take in are very often completely different matters.   Used to be 
audience surveys
said TV viewers "like" documentaries, but that "liking" doesn't turn up in 
the general figures on
what they actually watch.  Probably that's still the case.

Wheildon at least did a series of surveys using scientific method, as 
opposed to "feel good"
airy fairy stuff.      He found that for BODY typeface, comprehension 
levels were up to 3 times
higher for serif typeface.   That to me spells something an awful lot more 
important than
either the infinitely vague "aesthestic preference" studies or even vaguer 
speculative
suggestion  that cultural differences may or may not be at work.  (They're 
almost certainly at work,
but who can say how and where and to what extent etc if the simplest tests 
aren't done?)
Until there's some methodology, this is an Angels-dancing-on-end-of-a pin 
area.

>I've often wondered whether the typography of the books
> children use while learning to read might influence the outcome.

Interesting speculation.  Why not now check around and find one major 
English newspaper
that uses sans serif typeface as the font type in their new body copy ? 
(cf classified ads, which
are paid for by the inch/centimeter). Check women's magazines and their 
body copy.
Check the last ten books you read as an adult.   Hmm is this cultural or 
did these people
find something out a long time ago ?


>
> David Whitbread (_The Design Manual_, UNSW Press, 2001) suggests that 
serif/sans-serif
> is the wrong question -- different typefaces of different styles excel 
at different
> applications.
>
Yeah but did David Whitbread actually do any tests to say what excels 
where and to what
extent ?   Or is he just speculating in the net wilderness too ?   Where 
are the readership
studies and statistics on information take up for "difference styles" ?

Wheildon does say that that the font difference is not marked in things 
like headlines...

But he points out (as any newspaper sub knows) that all-capital headings 
are hard to
read.  (The Sydney Morning Herald used to have a rule that at least 3 
sub-editors had to
check the wording of the daily banner poster -- usually in all-caps -- 
because more
first-draft spelling mistakes occurred there per word than in any other 
section of the paper.)

And wide sections of body type can also affect comprehension. And this was 
one
variable also tested with basic methodology.

> Coincidentally, I'll be using passages on precisely this issue from 
precisely these
> books (and others) as illustrations in my presentation at the ASTC (NSW) 
conference on
> Friday.

I hope you'll include some basic comprehension test results somewhere from 
someone.

Otherwise, it's just a religious issue:  (i.e, in the "My contemplative 
navel gazing speculation
is better than yours " etc...)

--Peter M

**************************************************
To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to 
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to 
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the Subject field.

To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field.

To search the austechwriter archives, go to 
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter

To contact the list administrator, send a message to 
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************

Other related posts: