Return-Path: <root>
Received: (from root@localhost) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7VBs8010022 for health-archive@nifl.gov; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:54:08 -0400 (EDT)
Resent-Message-Id: <200108311154.f7VBs8010022@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from siteone.siteconnect.com (siteone.siteconnect.com [206.253.197.19]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f3DIPpg18480 for <nifl-health@nifl.gov>; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 14:25:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from smiths (152-52.siteconnect.net [206.191.152.52]) by siteone.siteconnect.com (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO205-101c) ID# 0-51690U800L100S0) with SMTP id AAA249 for <nifl-health@nifl.gov>; Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:25:49 -0700
Reply-To: <sandras@u.washington.edu>
From: "Sandra Smith" <sandras@u.washington.edu>
To: <nifl-health@nifl.gov>
Subject: RE: [NIFL-HEALTH:3039] Research in reading
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:28:27 -0700
Message-ID: <NDBBKNOLGLDNLBPDOLFCKEOADDAA.sandras@u.washington.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0019_01C0C40C.DBE5DC60"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
In-Reply-To: <a5.1452768c.28088bcf@aol.com>
Resent-From: root@literacy.nifl.gov
Resent-Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:54:08 -0400
Resent-To: health-archive@nifl.gov
Status: O
Content-Length: 10152
Lines: 227
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Yes yes! - great to hear the insistence on critical reading of evidence. And
no matter how we read it, or what conclusions we draw based on experience
with "our" populations, the evidence only can lead to the best possible
starting place. Then we need to let the learners tell us just how good a
start we made and how to revise. I'm looking for what works for the
proverbial 80% of readers, and then how to adjust for those with special
needs.
I do not intend to champion Wheildon, although a starting place based on
data is likely to be more reliable than one based on opinion, taste, or
maxims. As Helen pointes out, Wheildon 's work is done with skilled readers.
It would be very instructive to repeat the tests with less skilled readers.
Audrey's question also occured to me, and I'm not clear whether Wheildon
tested entire articles in bold type. If I read it right, he did test whole
articles in colored type, reverse type, and with Right, left of full
justification. Otherwise, I found his methods reasonably rigorous and he
seems to have made appropriate use of experts (eg statisticians). I agreed
with Wheildon that his findings cannot be extrapolated to every typographic
situation, but they do make it clear that attention must be paid to the
"physiology of reading" and to minimizing the physical burden that reading
places on the reader . SS
-----Original Message-----
From: nifl-health@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-health@nifl.gov]On Behalf Of
Plnenglish@aol.com
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 10:08 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3039] Research in reading
Greetings, NIFL-Health listers,
What an interesting discussion we've been having! Sandra Smith wrote:
<<<I'm
becoming increasingly aware of a design dilemma: elements such as spot
color,
bolding,and boxes attract the eye, as you have demonstrated [referring to
Wendy Mettger], AND they reduce comprehension.">>>
I think we need to be careful in drawing broad conclusions based on Colin
Wheildon's research. Sandra quoted from his book called "Type and Layout"
(ISBN 0-9624891-5-8). He has done a great deal of research on many
variables
and has some great insights for us. But when I read his book, I notice
that
he doesn't always define or quantify his terms. For example, in his study
on
using bold type vs. regular type, he doesn't tell us how much of the text
in
his sample was in bold face. His results show that bold type reduced
comprehensibility. But since the amount of bold is not identified, I am
not
confident assuming that use of bold in all situations and amounts is a bad
idea. I agree that a whole page in bold is probably a bad idea. But I
usually
use small amounts for emphasis and we don't have any research on how that
works.
I see the same issues in the questions about boxing, spot color, & colored
text. First, we probably don't all mean the same thing when we say "spot
color" or "boxing." If we talk about boxing information, there are many
variables to consider. Is it a box with a colored outline? Or colored
background (screen)? If it's a screen, what percent of intensity is it?
Regarding colored text, there are also multiple features to consider. What
color, intensity, and brightness is the text? (Some are more difficult to
read than others.) Is the text the same color as its background? If so,
is
the screen light enough to still provide strong contrast? Is the text
black
with a very lightly tinted color background? *That* particular combination
has high comprehensibility (Wheildon, page 94). So much to consider!
So...I would conclude that we still need more information from Mr.
Wheildon
and others before we can make broad stroke conclusions such as spot color
and
bolding reduce comprehension.
Audrey Riffenburgh, MA
President, Riffenburgh and Associates
Specialists in Health Literacy and Plain Language
1606 Central SE Suite 201
Albuquerque, NM 87106 USA
Phone: 505-242-5808
Fax: 505-246-9164
E-mail: plnenglish@aol.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:28:33 EST