Defragmenting 'System'

[Lieutenant Scott]

On 15/11/2012 12:38 AM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
[snip]

I don't seem to have a problem reading lines [counts] 180 characters
wide, which is what my screen shows. Can your eye not dart back
along something that long?

Sure, but with shorter lines, I can read the entire line with
very little eye movement. This reduces the possibility of losing sync
considerably.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Lt Scott's comment displays ignorance of ergonomics. I trust it was a
mere momentary lapse.

It displays first hand experience. If you don't like wide lines, then
change your display to suit your eyes. We are not all equal.

I can display your lines and everyone else's at any width I choose.

OK, so you're an outlier.

The ergonomic _facts_ are that in general
a) people read columns of about 30-40 characters faster than lines of
70+ characters;
b) people make fewer reading errors (missed or misinterpreted words)
reading columns;
c) ragged edge columns are even easier to read than right justified columns.

Of course you can choose to do what you want.

I don't believe any of the above apply to me. And I refuse to believe I'm somehow a much better reader than most people. I have been told I have absolutely perfect eyesight, but don't lots of folk?

Anyway, the fact remains that anyone can display anything at any width they want. I read everyone's lines at full screen width, but it would be easy enough to make them all 30 chars wide if I had reading difficulties, and nobody's text formatting could possibly prevent me from doing so.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Q. What's hairy on the outside, wet on the inside, begins with a "C" and ends with a "T"?
A. A coconut.

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

I don't seem to have a problem reading lines [counts] 180 characters wide, which is what my screen shows. Can your eye not dart back along something that long?

Sure, but with shorter lines, I can read the entire line with
very little eye movement. This reduces the possibility of losing sync
considerably.

Half the darts, twice the length of dart. Sync problem equal. Non-existent in both cases for me. Are you 90 years old with specs?

No, I am not.

When the column is narrow enough, one can read without horizontal
eye motion. Think newspaper columns.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[Lieutenant Scott]

I don't seem to have a problem reading lines [counts] 180 characters wide, which is what my screen shows. Can your eye not dart back along something that long?

Sure, but with shorter lines, I can read the entire line with
very little eye movement. This reduces the possibility of losing sync
considerably.

Half the darts, twice the length of dart. Sync problem equal. Non-existent in both cases for me. Are you 90 years old with specs?

No, I am not.

When the column is narrow enough, one can read without horizontal
eye motion. Think newspaper columns.

Incorrect. Your eyes actually move when you change focus from one LETTER to the neighbouring one.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

I only wanted to know if Opera was doing something technically wrong
so I could pass it on to them. I've yet to see this information.

What about the RFC I cited is unclear? Just because you don't
understand the reasoning doesn't mean the information isn't relevant.

However, in your case it appears to be an even deeper problem since as
it turns out the issue isn't the newsreader. Opera supports wrapping
outgoing messages at a defined number of characters specifically for
clients that do not handle format=flowed. It is your choice to flout
convention, netiquette and the RFC, not a flaw in the Opera newsreader.

if you choose to ignore it
then you are not being a good "netizen".

Netizen indeed. [rolls eyes]

You didn't balk at "netiquette" so why balk at "netizen"? But if you
prefer, "citizen (or denizen) of the network".

Why have your article pane width wider than the width you want to
read?

Because my preferred reader configuration ends up with that quirk.

Why do you like having a blank white area to the right? Simply
set the pane to the width you want to read, for everybody's articles.

I don't necessarily like or dislike the blank space to the right in the
article pane, that's just how it ends up. And I don't have to worry
about setting the width of "everyone's articles" only *yours*.

This will make no difference if the article is the same or narrower
than what you want, and will make the wider ones your chosen width.

Not exactly true - I have the newsgroup list on the left as a column
from top to bottom of the window, the selected newsgroup discussion /
thread list in the top right, set wide enough to show subject, author,
line count, date and other information, and current article below that
in the bottom right. This makes the article window rather wider than
80 columns, and narrowing the entire window or even just the right pane
to 80ish columns makes some of the important (to me) information in the
thread list above the article pane unreadable.

I'm doing what I consider sensible and I've explained why.

No, I think it is clear you are just being stubborn. There is no
reason not to set Opera to wrap at something less than 80 characters
for outgoing messages *as specified in their help*:
http://help.opera.com/Mac/11.60/en/mail.html

Managing Accounts - Outgoing:

"Enable format=flowed wrapping in messages, and wrap at 76 characters
for legacy clients (those without format=flowed)."

--
Zaphod

Adventurer, ex-hippie, good-timer (crook? quite possibly),
manic self-publicist, terrible bad at personal relationships,
often thought to be completely out to lunch.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

I don't seem to have a problem reading lines [counts] 180 characters
wide, which is what my screen shows. Can your eye not dart back along
something that long?

Sure, but with shorter lines, I can read the entire line with
very little eye movement. This reduces the possibility of losing sync
considerably.

Half the darts, twice the length of dart. Sync problem equal.
Non-existent in both cases for me. Are you 90 years old with specs?

No, I am not.

When the column is narrow enough, one can read without horizontal
eye motion. Think newspaper columns.

Incorrect. Your eyes actually move when you change focus from one LETTER to
the neighbouring one.

But that's not how people read. People normally read in chunks, getting
more from the shape of the words that from individual letters.

For instance, speed-reading courses train people to do that more
efficiently than they otherwise would.

I don't know whether the above is true of Chinese and other
pictographic writing schemes.

 

[Lieutenant Scott]

What about the RFC I cited is unclear? Just because you don't
understand the reasoning doesn't mean the information isn't relevant.

It wasn't a technical fault as such, I was expecting some kind of obscure formatting error in my headers or something.

Claiming your newsreader cocks up just because I don't put a CR in a certain place only goes to show your newsreader is pathetic.

However, in your case it appears to be an even deeper problem since as
it turns out the issue isn't the newsreader. Opera supports wrapping
outgoing messages at a defined number of characters specifically for
clients that do not handle format=flowed. It is your choice to flout
convention, netiquette and the RFC, not a flaw in the Opera newsreader.

If a client does not handle format flowed which has been around for years, that's not my problem. Why would someone use software over 5 years out of date?

if you choose to ignore it
then you are not being a good "netizen".

Netizen indeed. [rolls eyes]

You didn't balk at "netiquette" so why balk at "netizen"?

Because I didn't notice it.

But if you prefer, "citizen (or denizen) of the network".

Now you're just being a pompous ass.

Because my preferred reader configuration ends up with that quirk.

Explain this craziness.

I don't necessarily like or dislike the blank space to the right in the
article pane, that's just how it ends up.

Can't you come up with something useful to put there? Not very imaginative are you?

And I don't have to worry
about setting the width of "everyone's articles" only *yours*.

Well if it's not a worry then stop moaning about it like a little girl.

Not exactly true - I have the newsgroup list on the left as a column
from top to bottom of the window, the selected newsgroup discussion /
thread list in the top right, set wide enough to show subject, author,
line count, date and other information, and current article below that
in the bottom right. This makes the article window rather wider than
80 columns, and narrowing the entire window or even just the right pane
to 80ish columns makes some of the important (to me) information in the
thread list above the article pane unreadable.

I guess you'll just have to go back to reading class then.

Have you never noticed loads of web pages are way more than 80 characters wide? Do you send an email to them all the moaning about it too?

No, I think it is clear you are just being stubborn. There is no
reason not to set Opera to wrap at something less than 80 characters
for outgoing messages

I don't wish to impose 80 chars on someone who doesn't want it.

*as specified in their help*:
http://help.opera.com/Mac/11.60/en/mail.html

Managing Accounts - Outgoing:

"Enable format=flowed wrapping in messages, and wrap at 76 characters
for legacy clients (those without format=flowed)."

As above, everyone should have format flowed. It came out over 5 years ago.

 

[Lieutenant Scott]

But that's not how people read. People normally read in chunks, getting
more from the shape of the words that from individual letters.

For instance, speed-reading courses train people to do that more
efficiently than they otherwise would.

I don't know whether the above is true of Chinese and other
pictographic writing schemes.

It would have to be a very narrow column. I just tried noting what my eyes did, and they moved every third word in the line.

With three word lines, I'd just be doing way more vertical motion instead.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people
appear bright until you hear them speak.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Now you're just being a pompous ass.

Not very imaginative are you?

stop moaning about it like a little girl.

go back to reading class then.

Really? Now that we've gotten down to brass tacks, your only defense
of your position is to attack, insult and try to belittle me?

I'm done here.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Because I didn't notice it.

Now you're just being a pompous ass.

Now *that* amuses me...

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:49:42 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"

Now *that* amuses me...

Likewise, but in my experience with members of the military, that
entire post isn't surprising coming from one who wears the rank of
Lieutenant.

 

[Lieutenant Scott]

Really? Now that we've gotten down to brass tacks, your only defense
of your position is to attack, insult and try to belittle me?

I'm done here.

You've snipped the stuff you wrote which cause me to respond in that way....... very childish.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

_ _ _ ___ ___. . ___. . .
|\ /| \ | | / | | __| |___|
| \/ | | | \___| | | | |
| | _|_ . | ___| ___| | |

__ ___. ___. ___. _ ___. _____
/ | __| / | / | / \ / | |
| | | \___| \___| /___\ \___| |
\__| ___| | | / \ / | |

___. . . ___ . . . . ___
/ | | | / \ \ / | /| |
\___| | | | | \ | / | |
/ | \__/ \___/ \ |/ | _|_

___. ___ _____ _____ . . ___ _ _
/ | / \ | | | /| / \ |\ /|
\___| | | | | | / | | | | \/ |
/ | \___/ | __|__ |/ | \___/ | |

 

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:49:42 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"


Likewise, but in my experience with members of the military, that
entire post isn't surprising coming from one who wears the rank of
Lieutenant.

I'm not in the military and never have been.

Just as I'm sure you don't have two heads.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

What's the difference between spit and swallow?
Forty pounds of pressure on the back of her head.

 

[Lieutenant Scott]

Now *that* amuses me...

How can anyone not find "citizen (or denizen) of the network" pompous?

 

[Robin Bignall]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:49:42 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"


Likewise, but in my experience with members of the military, that
entire post isn't surprising coming from one who wears the rank of
Lieutenant.

You can see this Scott character across a wide range of newsgroups and
he's consistently an idiot in all of them.

 

[Lieutenant Scott]

You can see this Scott character across a wide range of newsgroups and
he's consistently an idiot in all of them.

STALKER!!!! You'd better be a FEMALE Robin.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

A foursome of ladies was standing on a tee when a streaker ran across the fairway in front of them. One lady asks, "Is that Dick Green?"
Another replied, "No, I think it's just the reflection off the grass."

 

[Wolf K]

On 15/11/2012 12:21 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
I wrote

I don't believe any of the above apply to me.

As I said: you're an outlier. Though it would be interesting to do a
test on you. As for "perfect eyesight", that has little to do with
reading skill. As long as you get enough of the visual cues, you can
read. Or not, as the case may be. You read with your brain, not your eyes.

 

[Wolf K]

Incorrect. Your eyes actually move when you change focus from one LETTER
to the neighbouring one.

Lieutenant, you really should read up on a subject before you pronounce
on it. The fact is that we do not read one letter at a time.

Etc.

 

[Lieutenant Scott]

On 15/11/2012 12:21 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
I wrote

As I said: you're an outlier. Though it would be interesting to do a
test on you. As for "perfect eyesight", that has little to do with
reading skill. As long as you get enough of the visual cues, you can
read. Or not, as the case may be. You read with your brain, not your eyes.

Ok I have an exceptional brain then. I accept your theory.

Do you ever wonder where you've read something and later discover it was something in the corner of your eye? Something on a bit of paper on your desk when you haven't even looked directly at the paper?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

I got invited to a Muslim party the other night.
It was the fastest game of pass the parcel I've even seen!

 

[Wolf K]

Ok I have an exceptional brain then. I accept your theory.

Not especially. You just like to read long lines, is all. The three-word
chunking you noticed when testing yourself is quite normal.

Do you ever wonder where you've read something and later discover it was
something in the corner of your eye? Something on a bit of paper on your
desk when you haven't even looked directly at the paper?

It's a fairly common phenomenon, which also works with people and
objects in the peripheral vision field. We see a lot more than we pay
attention to. The opposite is also common: _not_ noticing something in
your field of vision. You're more likely to recall such
not-quite-noticed items when you are not fully focussed on your task.

Think "paying attention", and how complicated that is. Our senses
provide us with a vastly larger quantity of data than we pay attention
to. Well before the "paying attention" phase, that data is filtered in
many different ways. Conscious attention applies even more filters.
Training for any process, procedure, method, activity, etc, requires
learning how to apply filters so that distracting cues are ignored. When
you are well-trained, most of these filters operate below the level of
conscious awareness. Etc.

 

[Char Jackson]

Really? Now that we've gotten down to brass tacks, your only defense
of your position is to attack, insult and try to belittle me?

I'm done here.

Kudos for the valiant effort. Not all campaigns are successful.