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

As usual, I probably went over the top a bit in adding to this thread. It 
just happened to trigger a reaction and once I got started it was hard to 
resist turning it into a personal diatribe.

But I do think it's a trap to disregard 'what you like' and treat it as 
irrelevant. 

Howard



Peter Martin <peterm_5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
24/10/2007 06:23 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]






Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxx:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:10:24 +1000,  you wrote:
> 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.
>

No. I'm certainly not saying that.  Liking something is fine.  I like 
sugar, certain types
of bread, certain fats,  and a whole host of other things that taste nice 
in my food.
I even used to like smoking cigarettes, once.  And I still like beer and 
wine.
But if I accumulate any or all of these things without regard to the 
overall effect they
are having on say, my main purpose of staying alive and healthy, I'd be 
stupid.
If I avoid these dangers am I similarly "brainwashed" ?

Whatever other people have in mind for nice appearing documents and web 
pages,
I regard my main purpose in writing is not to make others "feel good" so 
much as to communicate
information.  Of course, if I can do both, that would be even better ! But 
my general experience
is that people who gain understanding they otherwise mightn't have had, 
actually feel good too .

For me, this is not a culture war -- it is a disagreement over whether you 
want to communicate information
effectively OR to have certain types of beautifully shaped text (which may 
indeed look nice to your audience) in the face of evidence that one form 
of the latter can actually PRECLUDE the former to a large degree,
whether they look nice or not !

>
> 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.
>
The experience is lovely. Fine. Have a lovely time with that !  It's like 
wearing fish-net stockings:
if you like it, go for it.   Some people quite like that too.

But if you're a male and want to do it in a formal address to the United 
Nations,
I'd suggest you'd be starting with a communication problem that it might 
be impossible to overcome.

I'm actually quite fond of some nice sans serif fonts.
And I quite like some poetry.
But I think Tech writing is distinguishable from Poetry.

Is it so teddibly teddibly low-brow to suggest comprehension comes first ? 
  Is this really
"rationalism's brainwashing " ?   Gawdelpus!


--Peter M


















> 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
> **************************************************


**************************************************
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: