A REPLY TO ROBIN KINROSSAuthor(s): JAMES HARTLEYSource: Instructional Science, Vol. 8, No. 3, Special Issue on Graphic Communication(SEPTEMBER 1979), pp. 291-294Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23368227 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 16:15

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Instructional Science.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.105.245.179 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 16:15:56 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

291

Instructional Science 8 (1979) 291-294

© Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam - Printed in the Netherlands

A REPLY TO ROBIN KINROSS

JAMES HARTLEY Department of Psychology, University ofKeele, 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 of

typographic research are adequately expressed in the quotation 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 the case.

4. My quarrel with indentation mainly lies with it as a device for signalling the start of 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) but 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

This content downloaded from 193.105.245.179 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 16:15:56 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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. I see no point in being irrational because others

are.

6.1 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. Further applications can be found elsewhere (Hartley, 1978).

8. I find Kinross's alternative solutions to Table 9.1 interesting. They reinforce

the point (made in 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 my 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

recommendations have financial advantages for the producer." In saying this

he ignores the results provided from two experiments where clear gains for

This content downloaded from 193.105.245.179 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 16:15:56 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

293

users are demonstrated (see pages 103—104) 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 of which indicate advantages for users. Furthermore, Kinross seems to fail to appreciate that a finding of no significant difference between the abilities of 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 better nor no worse than the

other. If, as in some of my studies, readers do no worse on my revised ver

sions, then clearly the cost of production 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 elaboration" 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 of 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, but thought this would make little difference to students' perceptions of it. However, 19 out of 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 of real com

plexity. Our study of college prospectuses provides, I think, an adequate answer (see Burnhill et al., 1975). Designing Instructional Text 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 but with a set of ideas that they could try out

This content downloaded from 193.105.245.179 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 16:15:56 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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.)

This content downloaded from 193.105.245.179 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 16:15:56 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions