Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!pyramid!hplabs!hplabsz!taylor
From: rzellich@ALMSA-1.ARPA (Rich Zellich)
Newsgroups: comp.society
Subject: Re: The Aesthetics of Computers
Message-ID: <1505@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM>
Date: 29 Jan 88 08:06:59 GMT
Sender: taylor@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM
Lines: 25
Approved: taylor@hplabs

The issue is not so much one of paper, per se, or CRT, per se, but the 
use that is made of each.  I have some pretty crummy-looking fliers, 
reports, etc. here, that are not exactly a pleasure to read.  On the 
other hand, while normal CRT 80-character-per-line text in a glare-
lighting office environment is less than easy to read for hours on end, 
I have also seen some pretty good examples of "typeset-quality" computer 
output on higher-quality bitmapped CRTs.

Everyone is used to typing full 80-character lines on CRTs because the 
space is there, but that doesn't mean it's easy to read; shorter lines, 
and maybe even 2-column formatting, would be easier to read (in an 
earlier discussion on this topic, I tried sending newspaper-style 2-column 
output and got the most amazing set of flames back...neither the technology 
nor the people were really ready for it, no matter what they had previously 
stated in the ongoing argument/discussion of the time).  If you have a good 
bitmapped CRT, and decent lighting in your reading area, and the text is 
formatted with a decent font, spacing, width, etc., it's just as pleasant 
to read as a well-formatted book.  Note that you have to apply the same 
level of work to either paper or CRT to achieve good readability (of course, 
with a CRT you also need software that makes it easy to "turn a page").

As for the aesthetics of *hand* written documents...nobody in his/her right 
mind would ever consider *my* handwriting pleasant to look at or read.

Cheers,
Rich