Since I am tired of reading technical manuals, data-sheets, "other people's" code, and other publications, I thought I would remind people of lessons learned back in the '70s and earlier.
Enjoy...
Filtering Typographical Noise from Technical Literature
By failing to use various typography guidelines, technical communicators often introduce distracting "noise" into their documents. Research in typography can be applied by technical writers, editors, and illustrators to help filter out much of this undesirable interference.
Most technical writers, editor, and illustrators in the electronics field are familiar with such "noise" sources as static communications sets, own-ship screw beats that play havoc with aural and visual sonar reception, or "snow" on television and radar screens. Perhaps few have considered "noise" as something to be dealt with in the written word. This article defines noise as it applies to writing, mentions briefly numerous sources of the phenomenon, and elaborates on typographic noise.
When applied to writing, noise is defined as the degree to which the meanings of the writer and the reader are less than absolutely identical. Stated another way, it is the difference between what the writer means and what the reader interprets the writing to mean.
After dwelling on noise in this context, the experienced technical writer and editor probably will think of several obvious sources. e.g. poor punctuations, poor sentence and paragraph constructions, poor organization, poor selection of words, and failure to define the reader properly. A less obvious source, however, is the poor selection of typography.
Typography research done in the past can provide technical communicators with certain guidelines for making their documents more readable. Common factors to consider when deriving these guidelines are:
1. Line Length, type size, and leading. 2. All-capital versus lower-case letters. 3. Italic versus bold-face type. 4. Hyphens at the end of lines in unjustified composition. 5. Justified versus unjustified columns. 6. Ink and paper color combinations.
Before discussing these typographic noise factors, I want to make it clear that I am not proposing that every document going out the door include all of the recommendations in this article. I am well aware of certain limitations put on some technical literature by such factors as customer specifications, production expediency, and layout goals. What I am suggesting is that you follow the guidelines when practicable to provide the reader with a more legible document.
Line Length, Type Size, And Leading
In 1940, D.G. Paterson and Miles Tinker, two psychologists at the University of Minnesota, conducted a study on the legibility of various combinations of length, type size, and leading (space between lines of type). Their findings, substantiated in later studies by Tinker and others, indicate that 10-point type with the length ranging from 14 to 15 picas is the easiest to read. Furthermore, they report that an ideal combination is 10-point type, 19 pica line length and 1 or 2 points of leading between lines.
They add, however, that the following combinations of type size versus line length are acceptable: 8-point type, 17-pica line; 12-point type, 23-pica line, and 14-point type, 27 pica line.
(end of part I)
CAPITOL VERSUS LOWER CASE
According to Edwin H. Stuart and Grace Stuart Gardner, careful optometric tests have determined that all-capitol letters show down reading speed from 20 to 50 percent, depending on such factors as the length and complexity of the word . Thus with the sort of noise being introduced, it is difficult, it seems to me to justify all-capital letters even on to illustrations and viewgraphs, two common areas where they often are use by technical-publications specialists.
Obviously, all-capital lettering must be used when customer specifications so dictate; however, a good general rule to follow isâ€"use them sparingly.
ITALIC VERSUS BOLD FACE
Stuart and Gardner also point out that italic type is 10 to 50 percent less readable than straight Roman type. They state flatly that solid paragraphs should never be in italics. Indeed, at least one typography researcher, Rolf Rehe of Indiana University, recommends that bold-face type be used in place of italic even to show emphasis.
In any event, if you do use italics in your technical documents follow the same rule just mentioned for all-capital letters--use them sparingly. One final warning is never to use all-capital italic words. As Stuart and Gardner say, "They look like a picket fence in a windstorm."
HYPHEN IN UNJUSTIFIED COMPOSITION
According to Richard Hopkins, a professor of typography at West Virginia University, "Hyphenated words at the end of lines of type should always be avoided when striving for maximum readability in unjustified composition."
The reason for Hopkins' statement becomes quite clear when one analyzes the mental process the reader follows when he reads part of a word at the end of one line, scans back across the column to the remainder of the word at the beginning of the next line, and finally "marries" the two parts into a whole from which he must derive meaning.
Although I doubt that it rakes the read as long to perform this mental task it has taken me to tell you about it, end-of-the-line- hyphenated word do introduce unnecessary noise into the written-communication process. As a result, our old friend the "use them sparingly" rule is just as pertinent to hyphens at the end of lines of unjustified compositions as it is to all-capital letter and italics.
JUSTIFIED VERSUS UNJUSTIFIED
Traditionally, we have considered justified composition (i.e. flush right) as the ultimate in appearance for published documents.
This modern trend probably was influenced by research conducted by Stanley Powers for his master's thesis at the University of Florida in 1962. Powers study indicates that reading material presented in unjustified form can be read slightly faster than justified copy. Furthermore, he reports that readers seem to have little objection to the use of ragged right margins.
The implications of Powers' research are far-reaching in the publishing business. Is it possible that justified copy is not all we have thought it to be through the years? In a dollar-and-cents perspective, perhaps all published documents including technical literature, can be made even more readable by using less expensive, stand-alone, proportional-spacing composer or typewrite units in place of expensive, computer-run justified-type systems.
COLOR COMBINATIONS
Useful guidelines for selecting optimum ink and paper color combinations also are suggested by Stuart and Gardner. Table 1 lists these combinations in the order of relative visibility (another term for readability and legibility).
Table 1 -- Relative Visibility of Colors of In on Paper Rank Ink Paper 1 Black Yellow 2 Green White 3 Red White 4 Blue White 5 White Blue 6 Black White 7 Yellow White 8 White Red 9 White Green 10 White Black 11 Red Yellow 12 Green Red 13 Red Green 14 Blue Red
CONCLUSIONS
By taking advantage of typography research and putting the applicable findings into practice, technical communications can filter out much of the typographic noise that creeps into technical literature.
Excessively long lines and too much space between lines are major contributors to type graphic noise in technical reports done on typewriters. From a readability standpoint, copy typed on 10-point single spaced with a column width of approximately 3 inches. This suggests as two-column vertical format as opposed to the single-column format that is commonly used. Another format that could be used is three-column, horizontal (broadside), and single spaced. Although the latter suggestion is far from traditional, the layout flexibility would be quite significant. Table 1 summarizes type-size versus line-length combinations that provide maximum readability.
A single rule applies to three sources of typographic noise. When dealing with all-capital letters, italics, and hyphens at the end of lines in unjustified compositions--use them sparingly.
A fifth possible source of type graphic noise is justified copy. If we discard traditional prejudices, perhaps this source could be a blessing in disguise. The savings in money, time, and aggravation that can result from using ragged right margins would indeed be quite significant.
A final typographic noisemaker is compatible ink and paper combinations that generate interference that distracts the reader. Table 1 ranks the relative visibility of various color combinations of ink and paper.
Now, this was written by By James Allen Carte back in 1973. You can't 'google' this information, so I typed it out for you.
--Cpt. Vince Foster 2nd Cannon Place Fort Marcy Park, VA
We can now!
:-)
Careless positioning of page breaks can greatly reduce readability.
eg, a title appears as the last line on one page, with the corresponding text on the next page;
Or descriptive text is on a different page to the diagram that it describes.
Well, I just wanted people to know that certain styles of writing can be a pain to get through. I know I ramble on, but the information posted should be of good value.
Cpt. Vince Foster: "I know I ramble on"
k