User:Nuujinn/rivers/

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Related studies[edit]

There are other studies that could be relevant to sentence spacing,[1] such as the familiarity of typographic conventions on readability. Some studies indicate that "tradition" can increase the readability of text,[2] and that reading is disrupted when conventional printing arrangements are disrupted or violated.[3] The modern standard for the Web and published books, magazines, and newspapers is single sentence spacing.[4]

An example of the "river" effect in justified text

A widespread observation is that increased sentence spacing creates "rivers"[5] or "holes"[6] within text, making it visually unattractive, distracting, and difficult to locate the end of sentences.[7] Comprehensive works on typography describe the negative effect on readability caused by inconsistent spacing,[8] supported in a 1981 study which found that "comprehension was significantly less accurate with the river condition."[9] Another 1981 study on cathode ray tube (CRT) displays concluded that "more densely packed text is read more efficiently ... than is more loosely packed text."[10] This conclusion is supported in other works as well.[8]

Canadian typographer Geoffrey Dowding provided an explanation for this phenomenon:

A carefully composed text page appears as an orderly series of strips of black separated by horizontal channels of white space. Conversely, in a slovenly setting the tendency is for the page to appear as a grey and muddled pattern of isolated spats, this effect being caused by the over-widely separated words. The normal, easy, left-to-right movement of the eye is slowed down simply because of this separation; further, the short letters and serifs are unable to discharge an important function—that of keeping the eye on "the line". The eye also tends to be confused by a feeling of vertical emphasis, that is, an up & down movement, induced by the relative isolation of the words & consequent insistence of the ascending and descending letters. This movement is further emphasized by those "rivers" of white which are the inseparable & ugly accompaniment of all carelessly set text matter.[11]

Some studies suggest that readability might be improved by segmenting sentences into shorter word phrases. Mid-20th-century research on this topic resulted in inconclusive findings.[12] A 1980 study split sentences into phrases of between one to five words with additional spacing between segments. The study concluded that there was no significant difference in efficacy but that a wider study was needed.[13] Numerous other similar studies in 1951–1991 resulted in disparate and inconclusive findings.[14]

Finally, various studies have been conducted on the readability of proportional vs. monospaced fonts. These studies typically did not decrease sentence spacing when using proportional fonts or did not specify whether sentence spacing was changed.[15]

  1. ^ Rhodes 1999.
  2. ^ Tinker 1963. p. 124.
  3. ^ Haber and Haber 1981. pp. 147–148, 152.
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Williams 2003. p. 13 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Dowding 1995. p. 29; Felici 2003. p. 80; Fogarty 2008. p. 85; Schriver 1997. 270; Smith 2009; Squire 2006. p. 65.
  6. ^ Garner 2006. p. 83; John Wiley & Sons 2007. p. 153; Jury 2009. p. 58; Jury 2004. p. 92; Rollo 1993. p. 4; Williams 2003. p. 13.
  7. ^ Craig and Scala 2006. p. 64; The Design and Publishing Center, cited in Rhodes 1999; Garzia, R.P, and R. London. Vision and Reading. (1995). Mosby Publishing, St Louis. Cited in Scales 2002. p. 4. Other studies show that "irregular and uneven spacing" disrupts the text and may slow the reader; John Wiley & Sons Australia 2007. p. 270. The context of the "irregular and uneven spacing" is concerning justified text.
  8. ^ a b Dowding 1995. p. 5; Jury 2004. p. 92.; Ryder 1979. p. 23.
  9. ^ Campbell, Marchetti, and Mewhort 1981. cited in Schriver 1997. p. 270.
  10. ^ Kolers, Duchinsky, and Ferguson 1981.
  11. ^ Dowding 1995. pp. 5–6, 29.
  12. ^ Tinker 1963; North and Jenkins 1951. p. 68., cited in Tinker 1963. p. 125.
  13. ^ Hartley 1980. pp. 62, 64–65, 70, 74–75. The sentences averaged 25.4 words each. Hartley does not identify which font type and sentence spacing method was used in his study. The author notes other studies, three of which found a positive correlation between segmenting parts of sentences and reading efficacy, three that noted no significance, and one that indicated a negative effect. The additional studies noted were: "Coleman and Kim, 1961; Epstein, 1967; and Murray, 1976 (with positive results); those of Nahinsky, 1956; Hartley and Burnhill, 1971; and Burnhill et al., 1975 (with non-significant results); and that of Klare et al., 1957 (a negative result)" (64).
  14. ^ Bever 1991. pp. 78–80, 83–87. The text materials used in the research inserted various characters, such as pound signs in the spaces between phrases, visually interrupting the "river" effect. This study also analyzed various spacing techniques. It did not vary spacing between sentences or identify font type used, and concluded that "isolating major phrases within extra spaces facilitates reading." The article lists similar studies. The research in 14 studies in 1951–1986 correlated with the findings in the article, and six studies in 1957–1984 were inconclusive.
  15. ^ Payne 1967. pp. 125–136; Black and Watts 1993.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nuujinn/rivers/&oldid=410469330"