Josh> On Monday 12 March 2007 09:01, Richard Loosemore wrote: >> The word "module" has implications, some of which I don't think you >> really want to buy. If the helvetica-reading module is completely >> different from the roman-reading module, why do I find it so easy >> to accommodate to a new typeface ... is it because I can build a >> new "module" really quickly, using the same basic building blocks >> that I used to build the helevetica and roman ones? You would >> probably say, yes (I hope).
Josh> You may be surprised to learn that in experiments, reading speed Josh> drops by as much as 30% when the text is in a new font Josh> significantly different from those the reader is used to. Josh> By far the most common source of new modules is copy/modify old Josh> ones. Think again of a market, where any success elicits a host Josh> of imitators. Most fail. A few find some minor efficiency Josh> advantage and prosper. Is there some reason why it is not the most natural thing to look at the Helevetica Reader (as with pretty much any proper noun) as an instance in the class of font readers? It inherits pretty much everything from existing font readers, except a new method or methods (which themselves are refinements of old methods) for recognizing text. ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303