Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2020 7:53:50 GMT
I recently returned a book to the local library unread. It is a book from the '90s, not too old, and yet the font was dark, tightly packed together, single spaced, brownish beige paper. All in all, unreadable.
People spend endless amounts of time in front of the screen, with a bright background, the ability to zoom in adjust readabilty. New books are spaced and formatted differently. The world is changing.
So, basically, I have to find this book again, in readable font and spacing. No ebooks. Just paper, cleanly formatted.
I personally believe all old classics should be redone to make them more readable to the new generation.
|
|
|
|
Post by benziger on Feb 21, 2020 12:29:57 GMT
The legibility of a text consists of the structure or sentence of the text, font selection, font size and the font colour or background colour. This is used to measure the effort required to extract information from the respective text. Typographical and orthographical errors greatly reduce readability, which is why typography, as the image representation of words, is a pillar of easily readable text. Typographical and orthographical errors inevitably affect the readability and also the reading speed. This describes the time in which a certain text can be read and understood, depending on its formatting. Here, too, success can be achieved through clear eye guidance, visually clear word boundaries and text structure. ( Helge Groß, 2003) That in general. I understand Maggie's point. On the other hand, I sometimes have books in my hand where there is so much white and space in between that I would rather have a more compact (and cheaper) version. As so often, the art is probably in finding the right balance. (And when I dive into a book, typography and design no longer play such a big role for me - which should not be taken as a statement against ugly books!) |
|
|
|
Post by benziger on Feb 21, 2020 12:35:51 GMT
The printed word is preferred when it comes to immersion in a text, even if someone reads mostly digital media. Furthermore, we understand better what we are reading when we read something on paper. Especially when we have little time to read. We may now assume that this is due to the habits of the elderly, but it seems to be mainly the new generations who understand a text better when we compare reading on paper with reading on a digital medium. It has been proven that people who read on paper achieve better test results when compared with subjects who read on a digital medium. It has also been found that those who read on a digital medium overestimate their learning level. That is, they believe that their learning level is higher than it really is. They estimate that their learning level is higher than that of a person who reads on paper, but they are wrong. The explanation of the advantages of reading on paper over reading on a digital medium is due to a deficit in metacognitive processes. In particular, a deficit in the processes responsible for regulating the quantity and quality of learning. It is those cognitive resources that are necessary to learn something. However, when we read on a digital medium, we make estimates that are far from reality when we determine the cognitive resources we need. We are thus ill-equipped to meet our own needs. Similar results to those we mentioned in the previous paragraph were obtained when reading time was limited. Thus, when there was a time limit, both estimation and learning success were higher when reading on paper than when reading on a digital medium. This suggests that the cause is indeed a metacognitive deficit. In short, it is easier to learn when we read texts on paper than when we read texts on a screen. This fact is caused by difficulties in metacognitive regulation, leading to inadequate preparation of cognitive performance and overestimation of learning levels. This means that reading with digital media leads us to conclude that it would be easier than it actually is and that we use less cognitive resources than we really need. Moreover, digital media favour a more superficial processing of information. This in turn has a negative effect on reading and learning. Perhaps the use of digital media for rapid interactions leads us to repeat them while reading. But that is not enough. Taking notes by hand is more efficient than storing them in a file. Handwritten notes are usually more elaborate. And if you write something down, you get better results in exams. These results have important implications for education. The introduction of digital technologies in classrooms can reduce the amount of learning or even hinder it. Perhaps before we jump straight at the technology for its benefits, we should familiarize ourselves with its negative consequences so that we can better assess the metacognitive changes that accompany it. Bibliographie: - Hou, J., Rashid, J., & Lee, K. M. (2017). Cognitive map or medium materiality? Reading on paper and screen. Computers in Human Behavior. doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.014
- Margolin, S. J., Driscoll, C., Toland, M. J., & Kegler, J. L. (2013). E-readers, computer screens, or paper: Does reading comprehension change across media platforms? Applied Cognitive Psychology. doi.org/10.1002/acp.2930
(source)
|
|
|
|
Post by benziger on Feb 21, 2020 12:54:18 GMT
Ha, that brings something else to mind: Until the 1930s, German was not written with the Latin script (Antiqua), but with the German script ( Fraktur). With ligatures. With three different s ( sharp-s, long-s and end-[of-syllables]-s). Give children an exciting story in German script and a table of letters: they learn it in the shortest possible time and half are so proud to be able to do something their parents can't, that they want more of it right away. |
|
|
|
Post by Retread-Retired-Cameron on Feb 21, 2020 13:31:58 GMT
When it comes to print versions of my work I noticed early on tiny font and single spacing didn't work, and 1.5 line spacing wasn't any better. This is why I use Georgia font and a line spacing roughly two to three points higher than the font size. The text is compact enough to not have too much white space while also having enough separation and white space to not be hard to read.
Many older books vary depending on publisher. Some cram as much as possible into as small a space as possible to cut costs on paper. Others follow some variant of the formula I figured out after comparing the books that didn't strain the eye versus the ones that did. In easier terms, some publishers put profitability over readability.
As for brownish-beige paper, that's usually a combination of the paper's composition and age as well as the myriad environmental factors it's been exposed to. Most book paper is at least slightly off-white as opposed to pure-white to cut down on glare, think light ivory or the 'bog yellow' a certain writer in England dislikes. Now, expose that paper to airborne agents or pollutants like soot, cigarette / pipe / cigar smoke, grease from cooking, pollen, and so on, and the paper will eventually absorb enough crud to discolor from the starting hue to that dingy brownish-beige. I've had to clear out homes occupied by people who literally had windows painted shut, and the books left behind all had pages with that funky discoloration.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2020 15:35:37 GMT
The printed word is preferred when it comes to immersion in a text, even if someone reads mostly digital media. Furthermore, we understand better what we are reading when we read something on paper. Especially when we have little time to read. We may now assume that this is due to the habits of the elderly, but it seems to be mainly the new generations who understand a text better when we compare reading on paper with reading on a digital medium. It has been proven that people who read on paper achieve better test results when compared with subjects who read on a digital medium. It has also been found that those who read on a digital medium overestimate their learning level. That is, they believe that their learning level is higher than it really is. They estimate that their learning level is higher than that of a person who reads on paper, but they are wrong. The explanation of the advantages of reading on paper over reading on a digital medium is due to a deficit in metacognitive processes. In particular, a deficit in the processes responsible for regulating the quantity and quality of learning. It is those cognitive resources that are necessary to learn something. However, when we read on a digital medium, we make estimates that are far from reality when we determine the cognitive resources we need. We are thus ill-equipped to meet our own needs. Similar results to those we mentioned in the previous paragraph were obtained when reading time was limited. Thus, when there was a time limit, both estimation and learning success were higher when reading on paper than when reading on a digital medium. This suggests that the cause is indeed a metacognitive deficit. In short, it is easier to learn when we read texts on paper than when we read texts on a screen. This fact is caused by difficulties in metacognitive regulation, leading to inadequate preparation of cognitive performance and overestimation of learning levels. This means that reading with digital media leads us to conclude that it would be easier than it actually is and that we use less cognitive resources than we really need. Moreover, digital media favour a more superficial processing of information. This in turn has a negative effect on reading and learning. Perhaps the use of digital media for rapid interactions leads us to repeat them while reading. But that is not enough. Taking notes by hand is more efficient than storing them in a file. Handwritten notes are usually more elaborate. And if you write something down, you get better results in exams. These results have important implications for education. The introduction of digital technologies in classrooms can reduce the amount of learning or even hinder it. Perhaps before we jump straight at the technology for its benefits, we should familiarize ourselves with its negative consequences so that we can better assess the metacognitive changes that accompany it. Bibliographie: - Hou, J., Rashid, J., & Lee, K. M. (2017). Cognitive map or medium materiality? Reading on paper and screen. Computers in Human Behavior. doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.014
- Margolin, S. J., Driscoll, C., Toland, M. J., & Kegler, J. L. (2013). E-readers, computer screens, or paper: Does reading comprehension change across media platforms? Applied Cognitive Psychology. doi.org/10.1002/acp.2930
(source)
Extremely useful and interesting, Benziger. Information I did not have. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2020 15:38:19 GMT
The legibility of a text consists of the structure or sentence of the text, font selection, font size and the font colour or background colour. This is used to measure the effort required to extract information from the respective text. Typographical and orthographical errors greatly reduce readability, which is why typography, as the image representation of words, is a pillar of easily readable text. Typographical and orthographical errors inevitably affect the readability and also the reading speed. This describes the time in which a certain text can be read and understood, depending on its formatting. Here, too, success can be achieved through clear eye guidance, visually clear word boundaries and text structure. ( Helge Groß, 2003) That in general. I understand Maggie's point. On the other hand, I sometimes have books in my hand where there is so much white and space in between that I would rather have a more compact (and cheaper) version. As so often, the art is probably in finding the right balance. (And when I dive into a book, typography and design no longer play such a big role for me - which should not be taken as a statement against ugly books!) Nowadays, bookscan be found with 1.5 spacing. I find that insane and assume they wanted the book to seem longer. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2020 15:40:40 GMT
When it comes to print versions of my work I noticed early on tiny font and single spacing didn't work, and 1.5 line spacing wasn't any better. This is why I use Georgia font and a line spacing roughly two to three points higher than the font size. The text is compact enough to not have too much white space while also having enough separation and white space to not be hard to read. Many older books vary depending on publisher. Some cram as much as possible into as small a space as possible to cut costs on paper. Others follow some variant of the formula I figured out after comparing the books that didn't strain the eye versus the ones that did. In easier terms, some publishers put profitability over readability. As for brownish-beige paper, that's usually a combination of the paper's composition and age as well as the myriad environmental factors it's been exposed to. Most book paper is at least slightly off-white as opposed to pure-white to cut down on glare, think light ivory or the 'bog yellow' a certain writer in England dislikes. Now, expose that paper to airborne agents or pollutants like soot, cigarette / pipe / cigar smoke, grease from cooking, pollen, and so on, and the paper will eventually absorb enough crud to discolor from the starting hue to that dingy brownish-beige. I've had to clear out homes occupied by people who literally had windows painted shut, and the books left behind all had pages with that funky discoloration. I use 1.25 or 1.15, depending on page count I want. Always cream paper. I like Lulu's the best. Truly gorgeous. |
|
|
|
Post by And Kevin 2024 on Mar 1, 2020 15:40:02 GMT
"I personally believe all old classics should be redone to make them more readable to the new generation"
Or the old generation? I often find printed books that even reading glasses don't help with!
|
|
|
|
Post by And Kevin 2024 on Mar 1, 2020 15:45:17 GMT
1.5 spacing is about right, any larger can distract eye-flow. One old rule of thumb seems to be that (I cannot recall what they are called!) the dangly bits of a letter should not hit the sticky up bits of any of the ones below.
y
T
|
|
|
|
Post by And Kevin 2024 on Mar 1, 2020 15:49:15 GMT
The printed word is preferred when it comes to immersion in a text, even if someone reads mostly digital media. Furthermore, we understand better what we are reading when we read something on paper. Especially when we have little time to read. We may now assume that this is due to the habits of the elderly, but it seems to be mainly the new generations who understand a text better when we compare reading on paper with reading on a digital medium. It has been proven that people who read on paper achieve better test results when compared with subjects who read on a digital medium. It has also been found that those who read on a digital medium overestimate their learning level. That is, they believe that their learning level is higher than it really is. They estimate that their learning level is higher than that of a person who reads on paper, but they are wrong. The explanation of the advantages of reading on paper over reading on a digital medium is due to a deficit in metacognitive processes. In particular, a deficit in the processes responsible for regulating the quantity and quality of learning. It is those cognitive resources that are necessary to learn something. However, when we read on a digital medium, we make estimates that are far from reality when we determine the cognitive resources we need. We are thus ill-equipped to meet our own needs. Similar results to those we mentioned in the previous paragraph were obtained when reading time was limited. Thus, when there was a time limit, both estimation and learning success were higher when reading on paper than when reading on a digital medium. This suggests that the cause is indeed a metacognitive deficit. In short, it is easier to learn when we read texts on paper than when we read texts on a screen. This fact is caused by difficulties in metacognitive regulation, leading to inadequate preparation of cognitive performance and overestimation of learning levels. This means that reading with digital media leads us to conclude that it would be easier than it actually is and that we use less cognitive resources than we really need. Moreover, digital media favour a more superficial processing of information. This in turn has a negative effect on reading and learning. Perhaps the use of digital media for rapid interactions leads us to repeat them while reading. But that is not enough. Taking notes by hand is more efficient than storing them in a file. Handwritten notes are usually more elaborate. And if you write something down, you get better results in exams. These results have important implications for education. The introduction of digital technologies in classrooms can reduce the amount of learning or even hinder it. Perhaps before we jump straight at the technology for its benefits, we should familiarize ourselves with its negative consequences so that we can better assess the metacognitive changes that accompany it. Bibliographie: - Hou, J., Rashid, J., & Lee, K. M. (2017). Cognitive map or medium materiality? Reading on paper and screen. Computers in Human Behavior. doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.014
- Margolin, S. J., Driscoll, C., Toland, M. J., & Kegler, J. L. (2013). E-readers, computer screens, or paper: Does reading comprehension change across media platforms? Applied Cognitive Psychology. doi.org/10.1002/acp.2930
(source)
That all sounds very unlikely, and to be honest, some sounds like nonsense. Text is text, words are words. They all go in through the eye to be processed by the same organ.
|
|
