View Single Post
Old 09-13-2015, 08:13 AM   #15
gmw
cacoethes scribendi
gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
gmw's Avatar
 
Posts: 5,818
Karma: 137770742
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Device: Kobo Aura One & H2Ov2, Sony PRS-650
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT View Post
[...] It's been known for centuries that short lines increase reading speed. That's precisely why newspapers are printed in narrow columns.
That last sentence seems an odd conclusion to make, since it appears that for at least the last 120 years (see this link) research has indicated that somewhere between 3 and 4 inches is optimal. Most newspapers I've seen here have columns around 2 inches wide (well, to be honest, I've measured only the one I had nearby just now, but I'm pretty sure I'd have noticed a newspaper with 4 inch columns). Wouldn't it seem that newspapers must have other reasons for choosing their non-optimal column widths? (Like, maybe, selling advertising space.)

Something odd from that link above (in this post) is research suggesting optimal line lengths for computer monitors were longer (maybe because they're usually further from the eye? the linked article doesn't say). It seems there is more to it that simple line length (such as some of the other facets from the link in the OP).
gmw is offline   Reply With Quote