Re: 7 plus or minus 2

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


Previous by Author: Re: sans serif fonts
Next by Author: Re: HTML editor/converter choices
Previous by Thread: Re: 7 plus or minus 2
Next by Thread: Re: 7 plus or minus 2


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads