Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site utecfc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!utai!uthub!utecfa!utecfc!dennis
From: dennis@utecfc.UUCP (Dennis Ferguson)
Newsgroups: net.text
Subject: Re: Hyphenation, Re: Why Hyphenate
Message-ID: <46@utecfc.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 1-Dec-85 16:37:32 EST
Article-I.D.: utecfc.46
Posted: Sun Dec  1 16:37:32 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 1-Dec-85 21:32:12 EST
References: <471@harvard.ARPA> <773@mmintl.UUCP> <734@tpvax.fluke.UUCP> <etc> <731@othervax.UUCP>
Reply-To: dennis@utecfc.UUCP (Dennis Ferguson)
Distribution: net
Organization: Mechanical Engineering, University of Toronto
Lines: 52
Summary: 

In article <731@othervax.UUCP> ray@othervax.UUCP (Raymond D. Dunn) writes:
>Having worked for seven years for a developer/manufacturer of
>typesetting and other equipment for both the newspaper and general
>graphics arts industries, I would like to add my two cents worth.
>
>It is interesting to note that the graphic *arts* industry is one
>which has retained the concepts of style and attention to detail, and
>has laudably forgone the all too commonly seen solution of making do
>with what automation can provide "easily".
...
>Hyphenation is generally (correctly) regarded as a "Bad Thing".
>Unfortunately, it is necessary when meeting the other (subjectively
>more important) objectives of layout and style.  These in general
>conform to the rule that, when glancing at a typeset page or
>paragraph, one's eyes should not be drawn automatically to any place
>not specifically intended by the typographer.  In general, although
>specific parts of the text may be harder to read, a "noisy" page is
>regarded as being more difficult to read overall, than a "quiet" one.
>
>Any arguments in this context, for and against hyphenation in
>general, and concering justification/ragged-right, are specious.
>They fall into the category of "I like/hate Picasso".  Certainly
>there is room for other styles, and we must provide technological
>solutions for *all* of them.

If this is true, I find the divergence of the `subjective' opinion of
the graphics arts industry concerning what looks prettier on the page
with the objectively-established opinion of the scientific community
concerning what is easier to read quite interesting.

I spent several years working in a psychology lab for a professor whose
research interests included the acquisition of written language.  Our
own work, which involved the evaluation of readability of text by the
analysis of eye movement data, concurred with the great body of existing
experimental measurements of such things as understanding, retention
and speed of reading of written language in showing that text was most
easily and efficiently read when it was unhyphenated and unleaded, with
a ragged right.  In fact, during the period I worked there, the professor
was involved with the organization of a conference devoted to the topic.
The proceedings, which he editted, were typeset entirely in this form, with
the right ragged.

While my memory is dim, I recall that the original reason for right
justification was technical.  Early printing presses, the kind with actual
lead type, required that the text be set in a square block to keep even
pressure over the paper to prevent slippage of the paper and consequent
smearing of the right-hand ends of long lines.  While the technical reasons
for right justification have long since disappeared, I guess old habits die
hard.
---
				    Dennis Ferguson
				    ...!{decvax,ihnp4}!utcsri!utecfc!dennis