Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!abvax!iccgcc!herrickd From: herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: Coding in lowercase - references? Message-ID: <2070.2747dd14@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> Date: 19 Nov 90 18:24:36 GMT References: <20517.273e9e6b@merrimack.edu> <0093FC00.24D7FA00@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> <1990Nov17.013754.10134@ico.isc.com> <61679@unix.cis.pitt.edu> Lines: 74 In article <61679@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes: > In article <1990Nov17.013754.10134@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >>parks@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU writes: >>> The way I remember the story, IBM did a study on the comparative >>> readabilities of upper- and lower-case text. It was found that lower- >>> case text was the more readable,... >> >>AArrgghhh!!! Why do the legends always have it that IBM invented/discover- >>ed/studied everything??? >> >>It's long-established knowledge in typography that lower case is more >>readable...it probably far predates IBM's very existence. I believe that what is known is that MIXED case, where the mixing is done according to the traditional rules, is what is most readable. (Just got caught by that comparative/superlative thing, oh well, leave it.) > > Exactly. Thanks Dick. > > As a matter of fact, this arcane knowledge predates the invention of moveable > type. What we call "lower case" letters are the calligraphic descendents of > the old Roman capitals you see on government buildings. In the centuries- > long battle between legibility and space efficiency, legibility finally won > when paper became cheap, and the *most legible* standard hands (humanist > bookhand and Italic) were used as the models for most European type designs. > (The big exception was Germany, where the illegible Fraktur script was used). > > What we call upper-case letters are the descendants of versal initials, adapted > to conform to the style of a particular lower-case hand (*not* the other way > around). It would have been unthinkable, in the 15th century, to set text in > all upper-case letters for more than one or two words. But, in the 15th century, everyone who was setting type knew something about setting type. It is amusing (or maybe, I should say, a great opportunity) to look at Computer Shopper (other rags have ads made by the same "art" students) and see the amount of money people waste on making it harder to read their ads. 1) Mixed case is MUCH easier to read. Let's set the most important part of our ad in all caps. 2) Serif typefaces are much easier to read than sans serif typefaces. (Notice all the little tails on the letters in any newspaper, or in any magazine that wants people to read the articles.) So we set our ad in a sans serif typeface (Helvetica is a favorite name). Serif typefaces are too ordinary (everybody uses them) and don't win art awards. 3) Black (or, marginally, dark) type on a low glare white background is much easier to read. There is always at least one ad set in white on black. Even worse is the advertiser who takes a color picture of his product with lots of detail and prints his ad in white type on top of the picture - it's called reducing the signal to noise ration. The person who designs the layout for most of the editorial material in a magazine wants people to read it and has a modicum of knowledge of what has been learned in the last four thousand years about readable typography (Analog keeps violating this on one or two first page of a story in each issue.). Ads seem to be designed by people who don't care whether anyone reads them. > > -- > David M. Tate | Concord and time, each needeth each: > dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | The ripest fruit hangs where not one > "A Man for all Seasonings" | But only two can reach. > scapegoat-at-large | --William Plomer, "Gloriana" dan herrick dlh Performance Marketing POBox 1419 Mentor, Ohio 44061 (216)974-9637 herrickd@astro.pc.ab.com