Instructional Science 8 (1979)291-294 © Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam - Printed in the Netherlands

291

A REPLY TO ROBIN KINROSS

JAMES H A R T L E Y Department of Psychology, University of Keele, Great Britain

Robin Kinross has written an interesting review of Designing Instruc- tional Text, but, needless to say, I do not share his conclusions nor indeed agree with much of what he says.

I would like first to reply to some of the details in his review before turning to one or two wider issues.

1. I do not define instructional text to be any text that is typographically more complex than a novel. I state that instructional text is usually more complex than is continuous prose, and thus it requires more care in its design and presentation.

2. My book is not entirely based on research findings. It is based upon what I call a critical reading of typographic research. In Chapter 3 for instance, I indicate that research is available to guide the choice of typesize, line- length, etc. but I dismiss most of this research on the grounds that it is unhelpful for practitioners. In the concluding chapters I discuss freely the limitations of my own research. My views concerning the difficulties o f typographic research are adequately expressed in the quotat ion Provided by Kinross near the end of his review.

3. It is certainly true that I maintain that some features (but not all) of traditional typographic practice can hinder the reading of complex materials. Several examples are presented in the book to illustrate this argument. Readers may judge for themselves whether or not I have exaggerated thecase.

4. My quarrel with indentation mainly lies with it as.a device for signalling the start o f new paragraphs which are very short. Here the beginning of the second line of the paragraph catches the reader's eye rather than the begin- ning of the paragraph. I certainly do not forbid indentation but suggest that one considers its value. In Figure 5.5 I used it extensively. In Fig. 12.1 Spencer accepted it (with typescript) bu t in Figure 12.2 he rejected it (in favour of a line-space with a typographic cue). The problem is that the same device can be used to signal different things. I advocate using line-space to

292

denote new paragraphs and indentation to convey substructure. I accept that using line-spacing to denote new paragraphs may create page turn-over problems, but I feel it is better to consider first whether the nature of the text requires indentation than it is to provide it automatically.

5. I do not accept that my text does not confront the problems of using a proportional vertical spacing system. By using a grid with a "floating base- line" it was possible - on every page - to stop short or to run on (or to do neither) as dictated by the sense of the text and by the size and the position of the illustrations. Traditional practice, which does not do this, is, as Kinross admits, irrational. ! see no point in being irrational because others are.

6. I take exception to the statement that the illustrations in Chapter 5 are "notably disorganised configurations of relatively simple material". They happen, in my view, to be good examples of typical problems. Figures 1, 2 and 3 in this chapter were taken from textbooks currently used in Staffordshire schools, and Figures 4 and 5 came from the British Psychological Society. None of these figures provides simple material, and Figure 5, in my view, is particularly complex. Again, readers may judge this issue for themselves.

7. In relation to the last point it is important to establish that I did not derive the principles from the "simple" examples (as Kinross states). The examples were provided to show the principles in practice. The principles were derived from work with much more complex text. The aim of present- ing a series of one-page examples was to indicate that the general principles had wide applicability. Fur ther applications can be found elsewhere (Hartley, 1978).

8. I find Kinross 's alternative solutions to Table 9.1 interesting. They reinforce the point (made i n my paragraph quoted by Kinross) that evaluation is difficult because one has to choose what to compare from a large set of possible solutions. I had hoped that m y book would encourage people to generate solutions and possibly to evaluate one or two of them.

So much for some of the small details. Let me now turn to broader issues. I seem to be being criticised for promulgating cost-effective solutions, for advocating evaluation and particularly for providing guidelines based on limited research.

Kinross expresses disappointment with a book that "aims to suggest practices that aid the user and then is only able to demonstrate that its recommendat ions have financial ad'~antages for the producer ." In saying this he ignores the results provided from two experiments where clear gains for

293

users are demonstrated (see pages 1 0 3 - 1 0 4 ) and he neglects other comments on the usability of Figures 5.4, 5.6, 7.2, 7.4, 10.1, 10.3 and 11.2 - all o f which indicate advantages for users. Furthermore, Kinross seems to fail to appreciate that a finding of no significant difference between the abilities o f readers to use two different versions of the same text indicates (as far as one can tell with the measures used) that one version is no bet ter n o r n o w o r s e than the other. If, as in some of my studies, readers do no worse on my revised ver- sions, then clearly the cost of product ion is an important consideration. I must admit to being surprised at being taken to task for being cost-conscious. In my experience publishers and printers listen to cost arguments rather keenly.

Kinross implies (along with many other typographers) that the scien- tific method and evaluation is an article of faith amongst psychologists. Let me reply that typographers, too, have articles of faith. Many typographers do not appear to feel the need to evaluate their decision making - they seem confident in their answers. As Kinross puts it: "where improvements appear immediately convincing one is not likely to consider it worthwhile con- ducting tests with any elaborat ion" or "one takes the point (without needing empirical proof) that clarity of presentation will be aided by the meaningful use of vertical space." Actually, many psychologists (myself included) are wary of the scientific method and techniques of evaluation (see Hartley, 1978), and many typographers are keenly -interested in how they can test out which o f the alternatives they have generated is most valuable.

Psychologists stress comparison and evaluation because they are well aware that things do not always happen in the way individuals think they do - things can go sadly wrong. Let me cite two recent personal examples. In one experiment I changed the sequence of illustrations in a text, b u t thought this would make little difference to students ' perceptions of it. However, 19 out o f 20 students preferred the revised version. In another experiment I spent several days revising four pages of a piece of prose. I was sure my version was much clearer and would be much preferred by my students. However, 10 out of 20 students preferred the original. Research is necessary, therefore, to test the intuitions of both psychologists and designers.

One difficulty of course, is that such research is limited and therefore it can be unwise to generalise from it to other situations. Kinross asks, for example, how my simple guidelines can be applied to a text o f real com- plexity. Our s tudy of college prospectuses provides, I think, an adequate answer (see Burnhill et al., 1975). D e s i g n i n g I n s t r u c t i o n a l T e x t provides a further one. Not only is it printed in accord with the ideas expressed within it (no mean achievement), but also it provides a variety of illustrations of how some fairly fundamental notions can be applied quite widely. I had hoped that readers would come from the text not believing there was "one theoretically correct" way bu t with a set of ideas that they could try out

294

with their own work. I do appreciate the dangers entailed in the over-simplifica- tion of complex issues, and I think it unfair to suggest that I do not warn against them in my book.

What, then, was I trying to do in offering guidelines? Let me illustrate my purpose in practical terms. In 1978-79 my department at Keele photo- copied well over 60,000 sheets of paper for use as lecture handouts. On one course alone (lasting seven weeks with approximately 100 students) I used 2,100 sheets of A4 paper. In 1977-78, the amount of paper sold to 208 students in one teacher training college in the U.K. totalled approximately 125,000 A4 sheets and 8,000 A4 cards. The students were using this paper for worksheets on teaching practice. The tutor in charge of their course estimates that he used 18,000 sheets of A4 paper for handouts and discus- sion papers. In short, then, producing worksheets and handouts is a cottage industry-across the country. To my mind - from what I have seen - many of these sheets are churned out with little rational thought concerning their layout and design. The aim of presenting guidelines is to help such producers think a little more about what they are trying to do.

References

Burnhill, P., Hartley, J. and Fraser, S. (1975). "The typography of college prospectuses: a critique and a case-history," in L. Evans and J. Leedham (eds.) Aspects of Educa- tional Technology, IX. London: Kogan Page.

Hartley, J. (1978). "Space and structure in instructional text." Paper to the NATO Conference on the Visual Processing of Information. Het Vennenbos, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. (Copies available from the author.)