Re: Electronic Review

[Gary Merrill <sasghm -at- UNX -dot- SAS -dot- COM>]

In article <9511068182 -dot- AA818293985 -at- cc1 -dot- dttus -dot- com>, Thomas Kolano
<tkolano -at- DTTUS -dot- COM> writes:
|>      Regarding reviewing online copy, Gary Merrill writes:
|>
|>      > Some reviewers felt that having a paper copy of the document in
|>      > addition to the electronic one was essential.  I ascribe this partly
|>      > to the fact that old habits die hard and partly to the very limited
|>      > capabilities of BORED.
|>
|>      Clearly, there are advantages to eliminating paper in such a process.
|>      However, in grad school we were made aware of studies which
|>      demonstrated that electronic copy was much more straining and tiring
|>      to read than hard copy. Unfortunately, I do not remember the authors
|>      of these studies, but I agree with the conclusion from my own
|>      experience. Isn't this still an accepted tenet? I prefer reading paper
|>      copy, and would probably insist on the same as the reviewers above.

I believe that things have progressed substantially in terms
of display hardware in recent years, and I certainly don't
find reading from this nice 19" cylindrical Sony screen more
tiring than reading from paper.  But it is true that this is
quite hardware dependent.  Doing online review with poor displays
would be painful indeed.

--
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, Compiler and Tools Division]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm -at- theseus -dot- unx -dot- sas -dot- com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm