Paul,
As I said, I will publishing the research that demonstrates, rather
than proves, the legitimacy, rather than truth, of the assertions later this
year.
Nor did I suggest that no one knew how to properly design text for
reading on screen. The guidelines are well known to those engaged in
developing materials that meet things like W3C accessibility guidelines and
they are readily available. The problem is that too few people are
observing these guidelines and too many take the soft option of saying that
until there is flicker-free technology I won't bother to do any research to
see whether it is possible to design text that will overcome or at least
moderate some of the problems traditionally associated with reading from a
screen.
Also, as I acknowledged in previous message, palm top technology is
hardly optimal at the moment, but the problem is not with the technology.
It is with what the marketing people think they can sell. There is no
technological obstacle to having a waterproof (there are waterproof digital
cameras), book-sized device for reading text comfortably.
However, if we don't do the research and/or demand better standards
of readability, we are likely to be stuck with the poor, and in my opinion,
overcomeable, snippet-sized standards of today.
And, as I said before, none of this really impinges upon my original
remark that one way of approaching the problem of whether one disseminates a
particular document online or through print is to carefully consider what
the purpose of the document and which media will most appropriate satisfy
that purpose; and then design the document, print or electronic, to make it
as satisfactory as the medium will allow.
Cheers,
Bruce
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Smee [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 09 April 2002 12:08
To: Ingraham, Bruce; A list to promote discussion amongst MLE
Blackboard/Courseinfo users in UK
Subject: Re: [BLACKBOARD-USERGROUP] Web materials and printing
--On 09 April 2002 09:31 +0100 "Ingraham, Bruce"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> However, as it happens, your reservations (with the possible
> exception of the last) don't really stand up to scrutiny either.
>
> 1) The issue of reading online hurting ones eyes is self-evidently
> an issue of poor design. Well designed onscreen text doesn't hurt
> your eyes.
I find myself forced to take that as the traditional meaning of
'self-evidently' - i.e. 'I believe this, but can't prove it, so I'll
assert it and hope no-one notices'. The alternative is to believe that
no-one in the world knows how to make 'well designed onscreen text'.
When I can buy a large-screen (at least A3, preferably A4 or larger),
flicker-free, high-resolution (at least 300 dpi, preferably 600)
display device, then I might rethink my feelings. Until then, screens
are fine for acquiring snippets of information, but (literally) painful
for bulk ingestion of same.
> 2) With the advent of powerful, inexpensive palm top computers,
> there is absolutely no reason why they can't read things on the train
> or in the bath or wherever.
Palm-top computers are small-screen, low-resolution devices. See
above. Short messages can easily be digested. Reading (and
particularly scanning) of large documents is painfully inefficient.
(Though electronic forms DO certainly have the edge for SEARCHING, if
you know the keywords you're looking for.)
Hardcopy forms also don't run out of batteries, don't suffer from being
sent through security X-ray scanners, don't have to be turned off
during takeoff and landing, don't mind getting sandy on the beach, and
will survive (admittedly not optimally) being dropped in that bath.
--
http://www.cse.bris.ac.uk/~ccpes --- http://www.bigduck.u-net.com/
****** Unsolicited commercial email will be reported as SPAM. ******
|