Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!bobmon
From: bobmon@iuvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Handwriting (was:Input device)
Message-ID: <2546@iuvax.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 25-Jan-87 10:31:19 EST
Article-I.D.: iuvax.2546
Posted: Sun Jan 25 10:31:19 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 26-Jan-87 02:07:56 EST
References: <1191@ucbcad.berkeley.edu> <191@its63b.ed.ac.uk> <1145@rti-sel.UUCP> <3968@utcsri.UUCP>
Reply-To: bobmon@iuvax.UUCP (Robert Montante)
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Lines: 21

greg@utcsri.UUCP (Gregory Smith) writes:
> [...]
>Personally I feel that the 'italic' style of writing is more efficient
>than cursive script, since it requires a smaller number of strokes. The
>'joining' strokes which are eliminated in this method do not contribute
>to legibility, and actually degrade legibility unless they are very well
>placed (cf. 'minimum')
> [...]

Once upon a time (in a galaxy far, far away?) people were taught to write much
more carefully than they are now.  With sufficient practice and care, I think
that cursive writing can go faster than 'italic' (basically printing each
letter) and can contribute to better spelling, etc. because you tend to write
_words_ rather than series of individual letters.  It also has the advantage
that it minimizes the number of times you have to jab your quill pen into the
paper -- each time causing a little blobbing of ink and smashing the point a
little bit.  Cursive script gives a much more uniform ink flow if you can
control the pen motion, which you can with practice.

To take a slight conceptual leap, I think that good cursive writing, and the
need for it, have been obviated by the advent of ball-point pens and keyboards.