4 ms·

So I have a question about papers. It seems the standard in comp-sci and much of science to do two column layouts even for pages that are entirely text. Why is

by glomph 12y ago

So I have a question about papers. It seems the standard in comp-sci and much of science to do two column layouts even for pages that are entirely text. Why is this?

seanmcdirmid 12y ago
Narrower columns are easier to read than wider columns, so making the paper two columns instead of one super-wide column improves readability. LNCS uses instead a smaller paper (not A4/letter) with one column, I prefer two columns on standard paper to that approach.
- glomph 12y ago
  I come from philosophy where the standard is to do full page text. It doesn't seem to harm readability there.
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    There are lots of arguments, but its generally accepted in the type setting community; e.g. from http://webdesignfromscratch.com/basics/readability/ http://webdesignfromscratch.com/basics/readability/ > For similar reasons, long lines (wide paragraphs) are slower and harder to read than narrower ones. Lines of around 100 characters present neat bite-size chunks of text that can easily be decoded, and also make it really easy to scan round to the start of the next line. That’s why newspapers and magazines use several columns on a page, and why books use the same common format. There are some controversies, however; e.g. http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/72/LineLength.asp http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/72/LineLeng... > This study examined the effects of line length on reading performance. Reading rates were found to be fastest at 95 cpl. Readers reported either liking or disliking the extreme line lengths (35 cpl, 95 cpl). Those that liked the 35 cpl indicated that the short line length facilitated "faster" reading and was easier because it required less eye movement. Those that liked the 95 cpl stated that they liked having more information on a page at one time. Although some participants reported that they felt like they were reading faster at 35 cpl, this condition actually resulted in the slowest reading speed. Atwood talks about this study here: http://blog.codinghorror.com/text-columns-how-long-is-too-long/ http://blog.codinghorror.com/text-columns-how-long-is-too-lo... I'm not sure, however, if you would consider 95 cpl to be long. 10 pt. font across a letter-sized page with reasonable margins...that seems quite painful and one reason I dislike reading dissertations. However, if you are reading straight and not skimming, it might be better as flow is broken less frequently (I rarely read papers straight, they have to be very good for that). But wait, there's more! Narrow multi-column formatting only works well with decent typesetting systems...aka not Microsoft Word! Fortunately, a MSR Turing award winner using the work of another non-MSR Turing Award winner have solved that problem for us (i.e. TeX and LaTeX). There are many fields where MS Word is the standard, and therefore...it would be nuts to try anything complicated.
    - glomph 12y ago
      Ah yeah. You kind of have to read philosophy straight to get anything out of it. Skimming isn't really an option.

by glomph 12y ago

So I have a question about papers. It seems the standard in comp-sci and much of science to do two column layouts even for pages that are entirely text. Why is this?

seanmcdirmid 12y ago

Narrower columns are easier to read than wider columns, so making the paper two columns instead of one super-wide column improves readability. LNCS uses instead a smaller paper (not A4/letter) with one column, I prefer two columns on standard paper to that approach.

glomph 12y ago
I come from philosophy where the standard is to do full page text. It doesn't seem to harm readability there.
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  There are lots of arguments, but its generally accepted in the type setting community; e.g. from http://webdesignfromscratch.com/basics/readability/ http://webdesignfromscratch.com/basics/readability/ > For similar reasons, long lines (wide paragraphs) are slower and harder to read than narrower ones. Lines of around 100 characters present neat bite-size chunks of text that can easily be decoded, and also make it really easy to scan round to the start of the next line. That’s why newspapers and magazines use several columns on a page, and why books use the same common format. There are some controversies, however; e.g. http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/72/LineLength.asp http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/72/LineLeng... > This study examined the effects of line length on reading performance. Reading rates were found to be fastest at 95 cpl. Readers reported either liking or disliking the extreme line lengths (35 cpl, 95 cpl). Those that liked the 35 cpl indicated that the short line length facilitated "faster" reading and was easier because it required less eye movement. Those that liked the 95 cpl stated that they liked having more information on a page at one time. Although some participants reported that they felt like they were reading faster at 35 cpl, this condition actually resulted in the slowest reading speed. Atwood talks about this study here: http://blog.codinghorror.com/text-columns-how-long-is-too-long/ http://blog.codinghorror.com/text-columns-how-long-is-too-lo... I'm not sure, however, if you would consider 95 cpl to be long. 10 pt. font across a letter-sized page with reasonable margins...that seems quite painful and one reason I dislike reading dissertations. However, if you are reading straight and not skimming, it might be better as flow is broken less frequently (I rarely read papers straight, they have to be very good for that). But wait, there's more! Narrow multi-column formatting only works well with decent typesetting systems...aka not Microsoft Word! Fortunately, a MSR Turing award winner using the work of another non-MSR Turing Award winner have solved that problem for us (i.e. TeX and LaTeX). There are many fields where MS Word is the standard, and therefore...it would be nuts to try anything complicated.
  - glomph 12y ago
    Ah yeah. You kind of have to read philosophy straight to get anything out of it. Skimming isn't really an option.