Re: [luv-talk] readability (was Re: torrent software)
Craig Sanders wrote:
Rohan, just a request but would you mind formatting your paragraphs in a readable manner?
I'm a pedant and an extremely evil, very annoying person who probably twists his waxed moustache, and in general wishes to emulate Doctor Evil. That background fact having been established, I would like to offer for public benefit a useful English-language distinction: Readable: Easy, interesting and enjoyable to read Legible: Presented in a written physical format that facilitates reading. Text suffering from poor legibility can be fixed through better typography, or in some cases turning on a reading lamp. Text suffering from poor readability can be fixed by rewriting it to make the semantic content more easy to discern. Yr. welcome.
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 06:37:04AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
Readable: Easy, interesting and enjoyable to read
well formatted paragraphs are both easy and enjoyable to read - i.e. readable. bizarrely formatted paras with randomly strewn line-feeds and semi-colons are neither.
Legible: Presented in a written physical format that facilitates reading.
i deliberately didn't use the word legible because illegible to me implies badly scrawled or scribbled or smudged or similar - none of which seemed appropriate for electronic text.
Text suffering from poor legibility can be fixed through better typography, or in some cases turning on a reading lamp. Text suffering from poor readability can be fixed by rewriting it to make the semantic content more easy to discern.
readable doesn't necessarily imply sensible or correct or even especially well-written, just that it's possible to read without any more difficulty than is necessary due to the content. etexts suffering from poor readability can be improved by good formatting. it won't improve the content but it will improve the readability. i find Rohan's messages actually painful to read, entirely due to the formatting not the content. i'm not usually bothered by left or right justification (although centred text is a pain) but all those widowed and orphaned words and paragraphs are jarring in the extreme. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Quoting Craig Sanders (cas@taz.net.au):
well formatted paragraphs are both easy and enjoyable to read - i.e. readable. bizarrely formatted paras with randomly strewn line-feeds and semi-colons are neither.
Just in case the point was unclear: 'Readability' relates to the content. If you're talking about presentation issues of any sort, including paragraph formatting, pagination, etc., then you are actually discussing legibility -- in contrast to readability. (Yes, I'm one of those tiresome people who think there's a difference between imply and infer, between less and fewer, et cetera. Awful people.)
i deliberately didn't use the word legible because illegible to me ^^^^& implies badly scrawled or scribbled or smudged or similar - none of which seemed appropriate for electronic text.
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 08:29:06AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Craig Sanders (cas@taz.net.au):
well formatted paragraphs are both easy and enjoyable to read - i.e. readable. bizarrely formatted paras with randomly strewn line-feeds and semi-colons are neither.
Just in case the point was unclear: 'Readability' relates to the content.
i understood your point perfectly well. i just didn't agree with it, and you provided no actual evidence as to why i should change my mind.
If you're talking about presentation issues of any sort, including paragraph formatting, pagination, etc., then you are actually discussing legibility -- in contrast to readability.
unless you can back that up with some references that unequivocally support your contention, i'll have to classify that as mere opinion. opposite to but equally as valid as mine, but still just opinion. humpty yourself. [...later.... ] actually, it seems your opinion is much less correct than mine. in a google search for 'legibility vs readability', the first seven results (not cherry-picked) agree with me. i didn't bother reading further than that. http://michalisavraam.org/2009/05/readability-vs-legibility/ http://www.mightyfinegraphics.com/cg/typography.html http://webdesign.tutsplus.com/articles/typographic-readability-and-legibilit... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legibility http://www.fonts.com/content/learning/fontology/level-4/fine-typography/legi... http://smad.jmu.edu/shen/webtype/read.html http://www.vanseodesign.com/web-design/display-text-type/ they all say something along the lines of what the wikipedia article on Legibility says: "Legibility is the ease with which a reader can recognize individual characters in text. [...] Readability is the ease with which a reader can recognize words, sentences, and paragraphs. [...] Other typographic factors that affect readability include font choice, point size, kerning, tracking, line length, leading, and justification." the vanseodesign.com page also says: "Readability applies to the overall reading experience. It's macro-typography and it's about making type aesthetically pleasing in order to make it more inviting to read. Imagine you land on a web page of text that's been formatted as one very long paragraph with no headings or subheadings. It's just one long block of text. How inviting would it be to read? Are you going to attempt to find out? Probably not. The only way to know if you want to read that block of text is to begin reading it and unless the first sentence or two is extremely compelling you'll probably move on to another page. You skip reading it because the type design wasn't readable. Had the type been separated into several paragraphs, had there been a main page heading and subheadings giving clues about the content, had there been images, or some bulleted lists, the text would have been much more inviting to read. That's readability. You design your type so it looks more interesting. You make certain parts of the type stand out to attract attention to them and let those parts provide a way into the full body of the text." which was exactly the point i was making with regard to Rohan's emails, although with a concern for other elements of design than just paragraph formatting. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Quoting Craig Sanders (cas@taz.net.au):
i understood your point perfectly well. i just didn't agree with it, and you provided no actual evidence as to why i should change my mind.
Either you like clear English or you don't. I have no incentive to 'change your mind', and you'd have to offer me a very considerable amount of consulting money that is not in evidence, so good luck in your future endeavours with your present grasp of usage.
unless you can back that up with some references that unequivocally support your contention [...]
{yawn} Not doing that. Thanks for your interest.
actually, it seems your opinion is much less correct than mine. in a google search for 'legibility vs readability', the first seven results
{giggles} Oh, yes. That will surely settle it. Well done!
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 05:38:24PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Craig Sanders (cas@taz.net.au):
i understood your point perfectly well. i just didn't agree with it, and you provided no actual evidence as to why i should change my mind.
Either you like clear English or you don't.
i do. more to the point, either you're wrong or you're not. and your opinion about the definitions of 'readability' and 'legibility' is clearly wrong.
I have no incentive to 'change your mind',
no, you're just going to make an opinionated assertion and then run away when asked to back it up with some evidence. you're the one who claimed to be pedantically correct on this matter, it's up to you to back up your claim. at least i provided evidence that supports my claim.
unless you can back that up with some references that unequivocally support your contention [...]
{yawn}
Not doing that. Thanks for your interest.
that would be because you can't but, as usual, you can never admit that you might be wrong about anything no matter how trivial.
actually, it seems your opinion is much less correct than mine. in a google search for 'legibility vs readability', the first seven results
{giggles}
Oh, yes. That will surely settle it. Well done!
yes, it does. really. 100% of examined search results supporting my claim versus zero evidence supporting yours really does not only settle it but proves that (aside from your stubborn self) it's not even a contentious or debated issue. when i ran that google search i was fully prepared to find that i was wrong (and even half-expecting it since you seemed so adamant about it) and change my mind accordingly....but i was pleasantly surprised to find out that i was in fact correct. now, you're entitled to your opinion - everyone is entitled to be wrong if they please. but you don't have a right to assert that your clearly incorrect opinion is pedanticaly - or in any way - correct. btw, your childishly smug yawns and giggles don't work in your favour as you might imagine - arrogance is only justifiable when it's in the right. at other times, it just gives the impression of a self-satisfied spoilt brat. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> BOFH excuse #429: Temporal anomaly
participants (2)
-
Craig Sanders -
Rick Moen