Path: utzoo!utgpu!ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca!UTORONTO!HUMANIST Date: Tue, 13 Feb 90 20:39:08 EST Reply-To: Willard McCarty Sender: HUMANIST Discussion From: Willard McCarty Subject: 3.1043 quality of writing, cont. (92) To: "Humanists at Toronto" Message-ID: <90Feb13.210942est.57347@ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca> Newsgroups: list.humanist Distribution: ut Approved: devnull@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 3, No. 1043. Tuesday, 13 Feb 1990. Date: Tue, 13 Feb 90 10:32:59 EST From: ZAK@NIHCU Subject: WRITING ON MACINTOSHES AND PCS The following postings originally appeared in Info-Mac Digest Mon, 12 Feb 90 Volume 8 : Issue 27 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Feb 90 14:19:50 EST From: Mark Seidenberg Subject: why Johnny can't write? About the professor who thinks that Macintoshes breed poorer writing than IBMs: Sounds like an artifact to me, probably related to how the papers looked, not their content. In general, Macintosh output looks nicer than IBM output. This could have 2 effects on judged quality of writing: 1. people do less editing on papers when the printed output looks good. There is an illusion, familiar to people who have switched from dot-matrix printers to laser-printing, that papers that LOOK like nice crisp final versions must BE final versions. I mean, the moon looks bigger when it's closer to the horizon, but that doesn't mean it really IS. 2. similarly, the professor could have had a worse impression of the Macintosh papers because there was a bigger discrepancy between how they looked (great, all those nice type fonts and styles) and how they read (cruddy, just like the IBM-produced ones). So, to do the experiment properly, you'd have to let the students use different computers to compose the texts, but print them out in a common format (e.g., same type font, same printer). Don't education professors have better things to spend their time on? Like why Johnny can't READ? Mark Seidenberg inmk@mcgillb.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Feb 90 13:56:02 CST From: UC445252%UMCVMB.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Subject: Writing on Macs vs PCs According to Graeme's synopsis of Halio's article, Mac's cause poor writing as verified by a test with no control whatsoever. Even with my single course in statistics I can sense this travesty of justice! It may be fair to say that writers with lesser skill may be attracted the ease of the Macintosh. This can make the process of writing (which is VERY painful to those of us who are poor writers) almost pleasant. It may even be assumed that "Good writers" (people who feel good about their writing, people who have been writing for quite a while because they feel good about it) have been using IBM type "archaic" word-processors since before Macs were readily available. Naturally, people tend to stick with software that they are used to. Easier-to-use software may not be preferable to I-already- know-how-to-use software. Be careful, utilities such as VAX text analysis may seem to give credibility to such a study, but the results are meaningless with the shoddy testing used. You could have experts scan this BITNOTE for days, and there would be no way to tell whether the poor writing was because of factor A (poor writing skills) or factor B (an easy-to-use word-processor). Macintosh should be commended for making writing an easier and less painful experience. More people write down their ideas, now that we have Macs. (I realize I have no proof, but I'm not publishing an article) Without them, we (poor writers) find ways around writing. P.S. Please ignore the spelling and grammar used in this BITNOTE, it was composed on an IBM mainframe, where it is seldom worth the effort needed to proofread and spell-check! Outraged by the ignorance and injustice of this "study" (I use the term lightly).... Gre7g.