On 2012-11-24, Derek Martin <inva...@pizzashack.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 09:47:46PM +0000, Tony's unattended mail wrote: >> > It's been pointed out that this number comes from scientific studies >> > regarding the ergonomics of reading. >>=20 >> Sure, but not in what I quoted and responded to for which you're now >> responding. You bring a new argument. =20 > > Actually that isn't true. Someone else mentioned it earlier in this > thread, though they were less explicit than I was, and I didn't save > the message to quote or refer to it.
You're using non-sequitur logic. The argument you brought does not follow from the bits that you quoted. By "new" argument, I don't mean an original "first time ever" for a claim, but it's new to the quoted dialog and failed to counter the point it attempted to address. >> BTW, sending a variable width format allows for 72 character >> rendering, so these dated ergonomics studies are not at odds with >> an unwrapped source text anyway. > > Then you're not paying attention. It's already been discussed in this > thread that using flowed formatting (the only "variable width > formatting" for which there is a standard, and is actually in use) > doesn't allow one to *both* flow text, and specify that some text be > not formatted. This is a straw man fallacy. I did not take a position on flowed formatting, and yet you call out an issue that is particular to flowed formatting, which in fact is an artifact that specifically differs from my stance. One can "pay attention" to flowed formatting chatter without advocating or condemning it. > For purely conversational e-mails it works great (though I think > it's still true that Mutt's handling of it needs improvement), but > it is not a universal solution. RFC 2646 makes no provision for > including lines which should not be wrapped or which should be > treated as pre-formatted, Nor need it. We're discussing the most sensible ways to use EOLs in a message. It is the RFC that must be mindful of what's sensible, not the other way around. Laws, standards, conventions, and rules are based on forums, studies, and current events, and have a need to adapt as technology and culture changes. It would be backwards to make the merit of an idea dependant on an RFC in the way that you are. >> Moreover, you would be hard-pressed to find a study that concludes the >> same when the display device is a smartphone. =20 > > Sorry, wrong. As has been already pointed out in this thread, the > focus of the study is irrespective of media. Precisely the problem. Studies have limitations that the competent reviewer must understand. A study might find that titanium is the best armor a cop can have to stop a bullet while maneuvering (given the materials available at the time), but if the study predates kevlar, the value of the study diminishes. Time to re-evaluate. > The fact that your smart phone can't display 80 characters is a > failure of the media, and does not change the fact that the ideal > line length for humans to read is > around 80 characters. You're clearly taking the final /conclusion/ of the study and running with it without understanding it. Scientific studies are not as absolute as you seem to think. There are limitations in both the process and of the available materials at the time. If you fail to find problems and oversights with a study, you're not analyzing it carefully enough. Maybe 60 characters is optimum for a human, but only when the text is read off the inside of a pair of glasses that the researchers did not have available at the time of the study. I also see a failure to study what needs to be studied. You're approaching this in a way that would force someone standing on the train to use a laptop or big screen in pursuit of "non-failing media" -- ergonomic aspects that were obviously excluded from the study and thus absent from your consideration. Most will find that a pocket-sized screen is more ergonomical in on-the-go situations, and opt to have the most ergonomic rendering within those constraints -- which in the end is quite likely more ergonomical than lugging around a big screen (in times prior to having access to a phone that projects onto a wall). > Actually I do read e-mail on my smart phone, and I do turn it to=20 > landscape orientation to do so for any but the most trivial of > messages, regardless of whether the message flows and/or fits in > portrait mode. Quite simply, I find it more comfortable to read > that way; and no, I am not disappointed with the results. =20 You've extrapolated the result of a study and applied the results to a medium that either did not exist or was not studied. This indoctrination has made you biased, perhaps to the point of not being able to accept any future studies that might contradict the mindset that you've locked yourself into. >> > So the one million smokers argument is a red herring. >>=20 >> Nonsense. Calling out a fallacy (bandwagon in this case) is not a red >> herring any more than the original comment is a red herring. =20 > > Except the ideal line length has been proven (to the extent that > such is possible) scientifically to not be a fallacy. It's your argument that was a fallacy (incorrectly labelling a red herring the identification of bandwagon propaganda). The findings of a study cannot possibly make your logical fallacy logically sound. > In contrast, smoking has been proved to be detrimental to your > health. Hence you are using an irrelevant (but true) argument to > attempt to discredit an argument which is proved true; and thus it > IS a red herring, by definition. The bandwagon fallacy is still a bandwagon fallacy *even if it arrives at a correct conclusion*. You can have all the facts right, and draw claims that are very consistent with the facts, but if you support your claims with broken logic, it's still a fallacy. One million people might say that smoking is detrimental to your health -- and I would agree with them. But to support the claim that "smoking is detrimental to your health" on the basis that 1 million people say so is still a logical fallacy. You need a better reason to claim that if you want to be logically sound.
