mailing list etiquette violators list

[Razer]

On 10/26/2015 05:46 PM, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:
> 2015-10-26 18:28 GMT+01:00 Razer <Rayzer at riseup.net
> <mailto:Rayzer at riseup.net>>:
>
>     That's the ONLY time narrow columns
>     are easy to read, unless your attention has a deficit and you lose
>     track
>     of your place on the line... The reason the columns are narrow is to
>     allow for easier placement of advertising... the reason newspapers
>     exist
>     at all.
>
>
> Not true at all. Many people have trouble tracking long lines,
> partially because eyes are jumpy (not scrolling). Some people have
> this very seriously, but are otherwise fine (far as humans go).
>
> This is also something testable. There's empirical research. According
> to this <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01449290410001715714> 
> "An empirical demonstration carried out by Morrison and Rayner (1981)
> confirmed that saccade size is consistent in terms of number of
> characters, and not visual angle"
> meaning, you plop your eyes a certain amount of characters - not
> angle. You read a certain amount of chars per peek, and variable width
> might confuse you (maybe).
>
> "If the lines are too short, readers cannot make use of much
> information in each fixation. If line lengths are too long, the return
> sweeps to the beginning of the next line are difficult."
> Pretty straightforward/as expected
>
> "(..) 2.2A + 21 ms (Carpenter 1977), which means that the greater
> number of return sweeps with shorter lines will add more to the time
> than longer lines."
> Not sure about the unit of A (amplitude?) but it means you take 21 ms,
> plus some measure of distance, to move your eyes from x to y.
>
> The authors seem to be fans of the idea that reading speed simply
> improves from longer lines, up to about 130 characters, after which
> the line becomes unwieldy. Some in-print research showed 70 or 52 (?)
> characters to be the ideal width. I find it amusing that these relate
> roughly to coders' standards of 60, 80 or 120 characters.
>
> Ultimately, a bit offtopic and I apologize.
>
> Postultimate, write a preprocessor if you hate malformatted text so much?
>
>
>



A wonderful longline elucidation I had no trouble reading. Must remember
to do the math next time.

RR

Ps. Fuck experts AND their "studies". I KNOW SOMEONE got paid to to do
that, and THE ADVERTISING INDUSTRY was SURELY the payee/beneficiary of
the study.

Have I ever mentioned that "If I were Stalin" the people I'd line up
against a wall for the firing squad would be marketers, and the
psychologists and sociologists that collude with them?

That would also take care of academics who pimp themselves to the
Pentagon's COIN programs.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 4920 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20151027/4407ec64/attachment-0002.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20151027/4407ec64/attachment-0003.sig>