TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: 7 plus or minus 2 From:Mc Jdub <wigginje -at- PSSCH -dot- PS -dot- GE -dot- COM> Date:Tue, 29 Jul 1997 10:25:37 -0400
> ----------
> From: Chuck Melikian[SMTP:chuckm -at- MDHOST -dot- CSE -dot- TEK -dot- COM]
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 1997 5:59 PM
> To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Subject: Re: 7 plus or minus 2
>
> Tufte makes the point in his seminar that the 7 +/- 2 rule does
> not apply to written material. He points out that Miller's research
> applies only to short-term memory. Paper (or even an overhead) is
> external memory. It is not subject to the same limitations as
> short-term memory. After all Tufte points out, how useful would
> a dictionary be if it only had seven entries? (Not much different
> than seven bullet items.) If the idea of remembering only seven
> things at a time applied everywhere, how could we remember the
> content of a sentence of more than seven words? (Yes, an idea
> or chunk of information can be made up of multiple words.
> Nonetheless, we don't routinely write sentences of dozens of words.)
>
> Chuck Melikian chuck -dot- melikian -at- tek -dot- com
>
>
I disagree with this line of reasoning. Perhaps paper is "external
memory," but the issue here is not one of providing a source of external
reference, but of how to increase readers' comprehension *as they read*
by providing them with an appropriate number of items to be stored in
short-term memory while they proceed with the text. If you want to
provide material for later reference only, that is a separate issue.
(And of course our documents should function as a reference, but that's
not what I'm saying here.)
Would you present the contents of a dictionary as bulleted items before
going on to do -- well, whatever you are going to do after the list?
The extreme nature of the example shows in relief the necessity of
adhering to a scheme that is usable for readers, and, to my
understanding, general knowledge holds that scheme to be approx. 7 +/-2
(7 +/- 2 *discreet chunks,* we should probably specify). I clearly
remember getting the impression in basic psych. classes that this is so
generally accepted among perceptual psychologists as to no longer need
questioning; I further believe there must therefore be an adequate
amount of research on the topic to justify this widespread acceptance.
7 +/-2 has been established. Get over it. ;-> (just kidding.)
Jeff Wiggin
Citizen of the Empire mailto:wigginje -at- pssch -dot- ps -dot- ge -dot- com
> ~~
> TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a
> message
> to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send
> commands
> to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
> Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/ or search and
> browse the archives at
>http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html
> Send list questions or problems to the listowner at
>
TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send commands
to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/ or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html
