Scientists Offer New Way to Read Online Text

An anonymous reader writes "Scientists at a small startup called Walker Reading Technologies in Minnesota have determined that the human brain is not wired properly to read block text. They have found that our eyes view text as if they're peering through a straw. Not only does your brain see the text on the line you're reading, but it's also uploading superfluous information from the two lines above and the two lines below. This causes your brain to engage in a tug of war as it fights to filter and ignore the noise. The result is slower reading speeds and decreased comprehension. The company has developed a product that automatically re-formats text in a way that your brain can more easily comprehend."

Dr. Seuss

It's certainly very easy to read, and the formatting reminds me of Dr. Seuss books.

The only downside I can see (if this gets used in print) is the waste of paper compared to current methods.

Re:Dr. Seuss

You mean that we can use paper for printing letters and stuff? Does that come with many fonts and all?

Seuss - No, it's Code Formatting!

They just went and put an indenter on the English Language!

Now someone needs to invent a variant of English that requires indentation as a part of the syntax. It would be the Python of natural languages. Pyglish?

Re:Seuss - No, it's Code Formatting!

No, that would be Pyg Latin!

Re:Seuss - No, it's Code Formatting!

Well, it's not just indenting -- you can see from the highlights that they're breaking lines according to where the verbs are, kinda like those sentence diagrams you hated doing in junior high, and indenting according to the role that verb plays.

(On the flip side, this seems to suggest that the engine needs to work entirely differently based on what language you're reading.)

I'm kind of impressed, actually, in that the engine makes any kind of text look and read like non-rhyming poetry, implying that poets figured this technique out centuries before anyone actually codified it.

Smalltalk Rubish

You're overlooking the simple elegance of Rubish word blocks. Some moldy old writers just don't see the problem with "sentences" and "paragraphs". The verbosity of these older techniques is what makes managing texts like "Ulysses" and "War And Peace" so difficult and complex. These works would barely be novellas if they had been written in Rubish.

Also, Rubish has excellent automatic garbage collection. PC Magazine was impressed when they saw a draft of The Complete Works Of John Dvorak in Rubish: a single exclamation mark in the middle center of an otherwise blank sheet of paper.

And let's not forget its other features: four levels of variable article, exception handling (one Rubishist summarized this as the "no ifs or buts" rule), advanced punctuation overloading (exclamation marks aren't just for shocks), and something I can't believe English STILL doesn't support: regular expression (say one thing, mean another. The RIAA and MPAA tried introducing this feature to English in an attempt at explaining the advantages of DRM. Not only did they fail, they sued one another for copying the other's idea.)

You're interested in learning more about Rubish, I can tell. I recommend Prattling Rubish, part of the Prattling Penmen series. The book itself is written entirely in Rubish. It's three pages long and takes most people a couple of weeks to decipher.

Re:Dr. Seuss

http://venturebeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/ beforeafter1.jpg [venturebeat.com]

I noticed several things that make it difficult for me to actually evaluate the difference. First each uses a different font, then the one that is supposed to be inferior ends with an incomplete sentance "A cell is" - making it gramatically inferior, if you zoom in you'll notice that the inferior sample didn't compress well in the jpg, the fonts are different sizes, and finally live link labeling the new sample as "Section 1:" provides more contextual information making it in fact more informative. While these changes are subtle each by themselves they are all time tested methods for improving text. Don't blur the text, add contextual info, complete your sentances and use standardized grammar. If this is the standard output from their software then this is truly not impressive. Aside from these issues, haven't people used collumns for a long time too?

Re:

Somebody mod the parent comment up. I was going to say exactly the same thing. Folks, when you're going to announce a "breakthrough", you need to let it stand on its own without any "helpers". Maybe this wasn't done on purpose, but then it ought to be a

Re:Dr. Seuss

Maybe it's just me, but I don't discard the extra 'noise' that I get from reading. I read roughly every second or third line, build up a composite image of the paragraph, tokenise it in parallel, and then parse it from that. It's a much better fit with how the optical system works than how people tend to describe reading, and possibly why I read a lot faster than most people I know. This new system slows my reading rate a lot.

Re:Dr. Seuss/Trying again with correct format

I tend to read about 2-3 times faster than most "good" readers I know.

I'm not sure that should have been rated "funny". I actually find the block text to be easier to read than the poetry-style lines. First of all, the color interferes with my ability to keep the whole sentence together. My brain actually ends up sticking the black text together in one group, and the red text together in another group. That really slows me down.

So I started thinking about why I read block text so fast.

Let's go over that last "funny" post. Yeah, it was written in the style of tongue-in-cheek quips, but I'm not sure the guy was joking.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't discard the extra 'noise' that I get from reading. I read roughly every second or third line

Okay, I read approximately one phrase (line) at a time. When I'm speed reading, I don't bother to understand the words of that line until my eyes are already on the next line. It feels like I'm reading every second or third line, but I'm actually hitting every one.

build up a composite image of the paragraph, tokenise it in parallel

I then attach a significance to the phrase, and approximate what the relation of the phrases are, according to ifs, ands, and buts, as well as punctuation.

and then parse it from that.

Then I discard the lines that seem relatively unimportant, giving me a basic summary of the paragraph. From this, I fit the other sentences back in as needed. What that means, realistically speaking, is that I look at the paragraph, identify the main topic, and glance through it as needed to understand the specifics.

It's a much better fit with how the optical system works than how people tend to describe reading, and possibly why I read a lot faster than most people I know. This new system slows my reading rate a lot.

Which is what I've experienced, too.

Re:Dr. Seuss

Maybe I'm bucking the trend so far, but I found the reformatted versions harder to read than normal text. You're right about their bad comparison - but comparing their "poetic" formatting against normal text on a webpage (not their example) makes me think that ther technique makes it harder to read.

Their "revelation" about how the eyes scan a page is well known and understood in page design and layout. Also, the idea that the brain has to remove "clutter" from the surrounding words is false. The brain uses the pattern of the text above and below to help the eye scan back to the beginning of the line quickly. Also the brain interprets the surrounding text to get an earlier chance to parse what is coming. The line underneath is processed before it is consciously read, kind of a warm-up run.

Sadly I can't remember where I read this, or find a reference to it...

Re:Dr. Seuss

This has to work. I know I can read a page twice as fast if it is double spaced.

Re:Dr. Seuss

People would take that as license to write purple text on a red background.

Then Myspace would have to be invented.

Re:Dr. Seuss

Then Myspace would have to be invented.

Or Wired.

Yeah, they've gotten better, but they still spin the random color wheels every now and again.

Re:Dr. Seuss

No joke. For those of us aural thinkers, this is the most annoying presentation possible. You stop in the middle of a phrase. If they diced it up by phrases, it wouldn't be bad, but hearing the words "I think" followed by a pause while your eye scans down to the words "I can" in the next line.... It's worse than children's books. It is absolutely horrible for me to read those samples.

Here's a version of that paragraph rewritten in this style. Tell me if you have a harder time reading it.

No joke.
For those
of us aural thinkers,
this is
the most annoying presentation
possible.
You stop
in the middle
of a phrase.
If they
diced it up
by phrases,
it wouldn't be
bad,
but hearing the words
"I think"
followed by
a pause
while your eye
scans down
to the words
"I can"
in the next line....
It's worse
than children's books.
It is
absolutely horrible
for me
to read those samples.

Don't get me wrong, block text is hard to read, but this can be improved significantly through using fonts that are large enough to read, using a serif font to provide additional clues about letter shapes, leaving more space between lines, and limiting your paragraphs to no more than about three or four lines of text. You don't have to insult the intelligence of the reader to get a point across...
like my post
seems
to do,
but really
doesn't.

Re:For me, the vertical text was awful

The GP's reformatted paragraph didn't take into account the line indentation that the article showed.  I think part of the trick for them is to make the "carriage return" shorter, making your eyes have to travel less distance to get to the next piece of the sentence.  Note how, in the article, the lines that started indented were short, so that the distance from the end of them to the beginning of the next line, which was indented less, still wasn't much?  This keeps the text from creeping across the page as it goes down.

Also, if you try to read
    something that
  is randomly
broken
     along indeterminate
   points in a sentence,
then it will be
   much harder to
read than if it has

      been dissected into
   parts that pay attention
          to the natural
     breaks in the language.

Scrolling

The screenshot
    looks good.

It breaks the text down
  into phrases
  like poetry.

(It looks sort of
    like code.)

But, for anything
    other than a short document,
      you will be scrolling a long time,
  baby.

Just up the css line-height to 2, and call it a day.

Re:Scrolling

You forgot the final line: "Burma Shave!"

Re:Scrolling

And did you notice how blurry the image was of the 'standard' text. Nice job there. "look how much easier the text on the right is to read compared to the old stuff on the left!". This is a SERIOUSLY flawed example.

Did they do such a shoddy job in the study? Why is there no link to a peer-reviewed study?

Re:Scrolling

It's weird, but as I read text formatted like that, I mentally insert a pause after each line. My mental voice says "Itbreaksthetextdown.... intophrases..... likepoetry............."

It's actually quite annoying, and I prefer block text. :-)

Who needs Live Ink?

We could all
        just start typing
              all our messages
just like this!

Nah, that might
      be too annoying...

Re:

No it won't.
Because if you didn't
type it this way
I might have
skipped over

Re:Who needs Live Ink?

I think you're missing the part about how the positioning of the words are determined. The algorithms used were inspired by spoken syntax: "The prosodic cues in spoken language are more complex than simple pauses at phrase boundaries; subtle variations in pitch, volume, and the duration of word pronunciation have been shown to convey hierarchical structures in syntax (Ferreira & Anes, 1994). When these prosodic-syntactic cues of speech are experimentally stripped away from audiorecordings of sentences, listeners' comprehension drops (Cutler, Dahan, & van Donselaar, 1997). This finding has important implications for reading because, when language is written down, many of these same syntactic cues are similarly stripped away" Also, according to the supporting paper, parsing sentences along these lines help support the goals of the semantic web, helping online readers to parse complex expository writing.

Re:Who needs Live Ink?

The algorithms used were inspired by spoken syntax:

Which may not be all that relevant to the comprehension of written language [thehindujobs.com].

One aspect the linked article emphasizes is that spoken language is ephemeral, whereas written language is permanent. This is a large difference, as anyone who can read a second language with relative fluency but understand the spoken form hardly at all knows.

For this and many other reasons (no one speaks like a textbook or scientific paper for a reason--writing is far more effective at conveying certain types of information) it is problematic to claim without proof that "making writing more like speech is a good thing." In some cases it is probably true. In lots of other cases it may well be false. It will depend on the nature of the information being conveyed.

Low tech workaround

I personally just highlight the text with my mouse as I read through an article seems to help me keep my place and read faster.
Of course it drives anyone reading over my shoulder nuts....

If it was really better...

...someone would have already invented this "new" method. Unfortunately, it's not better. The text is certainly easier to follow (which proves the research), but that's only half the battle. The formatting implies certain cues such as tone, volume, and emphasis. By reformatting the text, the software loses the original cues and accidentally adds new ones. The new cues may change the overall meaning of the text resulting in a failure to communicate.

Re:

If it was really better someone would have already invented this "new" method.

What a bizarre claim! You're implying that there has been no progress ever, and furthermore, there can be no progress ever!

Re:If it was really better...

"Why?"

Because paper costs money and space is limited. Both of these explanations are superior to yours.

"Poetry regularly follows such patterns, using them to express a certain spoken "tone" within the meter."

Poetry is not a legitimate comparison. Poetry is frequently formatted with no regard whatsoever to how easy it is to read. Often, the formatting is done to preserve tings which actually make it harder to read, on purpose.

"So why can't we transfer it to regular text? There must be an overriding reason?"

Because paper costs money and space is limited. Both of these explanations are superior to yours.

"When you introduce a solution to a problem, you need to make sure that it's easily adoptable."

No actually you don't.

"Is the new solution truly superior if the supposedly superior solution is more difficult to use than the solution it replaces?"

Did you really say this? How many things did you learn as a child that you found a better way to do later, but had to learn first? If it's difficult at first, but then becomes more efficient after learning, then yes it is better.

It seems that ultimately your only real objection is that this is "inelegant", which has caused you to manufacture other spurious objections in order to justify your dislike of this methods aesthetics.

Saw something similar before

Years ago I saw a shareware program that was supposed to help you read text faster. I think they were basing it upon a different principle involving eye movement speed, but it would be a compatible idea to this approach. You would just look at a certain fixed point on a blank page and it would feed you one word at time at whatever speed you select. The words always showed up at the same position, so in terms of this article your "straw" would be in a fixed position.

I was able to read quite a bit faster, but I did not have the money to spend on it at the time. I also wasn't sure how useful it would be outside of novels.

Re:

I've been reading through straws (tubes?) since the early days of the Internet......I get most of my "news" online now (I use the term loosely because, well, I read /. afterall).

Layne

Slower reading speeds?

... uploading superfluous information from the two lines above and the two lines below...The result is slower reading speeds and decreased comprehension.

WTF? This is how I've always done speed-reading...

Re:Slower reading speeds?

WTF? This is how I've always done speed-reading...

I always do my speed reading by skipping the article and just posting on /.

Re:Slower reading speeds?

WTF? This is how I've always done speed-reading...

Everyone claiming to speed read is probably just scanning text. True speed reading (1000 words per minute with high comprehension) is basically a myth [slate.com].

Looks Like an Ad or Poster

Does anyone else see the similarity between the formatted text and what many advertisers and graphic designers have been doing for years?

Less confusing?

That's supposed to be LESS confusing? My eye jumps to the colored words first, which appear to be picked almost randomly. (It looks like they are actually the verbs of the sentences.) Then I have to force my eye back to the beginning of the sentence and try to ignore the different colors. Then, because there's a break between that sentence and the next, I have to do the same thing all over again.

And what's the difference if my eyes are pulling words from the previous and next sentence or the pieces of the current one? It's still giving me information that I don't need -right now- in the sentence.

And the additional poem-like formatting is also confusing, as special formatting usually -means- something.

Training myself to read this, which is only used online and only if licensed by this company, would be a hassle. And used very little.

Summary

I couldn't understand the summary... there is too much text there in one big block. Could someone please explain it to me... maybe reformat it so it's easier to read?

Re:Summary

Summary: buy our product.

More readable version

Summary:
        buy our product.

Wow.

I guess there really is something to be said for haphazard scrawling of random broken sentences which trail annoyingly around the page.

It looks like there are quite a few Vogon-poetry hopefuls in sororities and coffeehouses to whom I owe an apology!

FAQs

Of course their FAQs [liveink.com] are not posted in that format.

This is great...

The company has developed a product that automatically re-formats text in a way that your brain can more easily comprehend.

Pictures of Japanese schoolgirls?

Ode to a Filter

I try to forrmat my writing In a way that is easy to read. But Slashdot has Lameness filtering That makes it difficult indeed.

Re:Ode to a Filter

I try to forrmat my writing
In a way that is easy to read.
But Slashdot has Lameness filtering
That makes it difficult indeed.

The preview button yells to me
"Use me! Use me!" I hear it shout.
Alas, my naughty fingers flee
A bit to the left; I've lost this bout.

Ever read poetry?

In poetry, this sort of formatting is common. But the formatting implies emphasis, inflection, and so on. All of the readers know this, consciously or not. So their perception of what the text says will be different. Block text adds little emphasis (although short paragraphs convey faster action).

Also, while it is true that people stumble on the text above or below a line, this effect can be helpful if you're skimming. It would be a pain to skim a ten (block paragraph) page of text in this poetry format. Not only would there be a lot more scrolling, but you can't just "image" a paragraph at a time to find the piece you're looking for. I'll admit, the modern way of formatting text may not be the best, but it is so entrained that'd be tough to change without all sorts of unintended consequences.

Biased images? Nahhh....

First impressions when looking at the image that accompanies this article:
1) The block text version is actually blurred. Compare the initial "M" from each side... there's a major difference in clarity of the image.
2) I find the "clear" version nearly impossible to read. It's a bit too randomly coloured and formatted.
3) The people who did this research are idiots.

OK, so two of the three are subjective. But I'm pretty certain about the first, and I think the third is pretty likely.

Add in the points other people have mentioned -- long scroll times, loss of standard formatting tricks to convey meaning -- and this all starts looking pretty useless to me.

Looks strangely familiar...

seeing the article
text, strangely familiar
where have I seen it?

the light bulb goes on
a haiku generator
can it truly be?

700 Words Per Minute

My uncle could read 700 words per minute. He would look a section of a page and grab part of 3 or 4 lines at once. He brain would be putting the lines back together while he was scaning the next section. He always read that way. He was a farmer - he almost no time for reading in the summer but long stretches in the winter. He could easily read over 100 books in that time.

In other words the effect that this process is fighting can be used to read much faster than most of us do. I can't do it for more than a few minutes but if you trained early enough or hard enough I think you could get there.

This would make an excellent teaching aid

At work, I deal with the software used to help kids who are struggling with reading a lot. Presently, all it does is give them a section of text, let them listen to recorded readings of it, and then have them try to emulate what they heard. It does work for a lot of kids, but it's slow going.

What I see in this new method of formatting is that the sentences are being being broken up very similar to how their natural spoken rhythm would flow, making it much easier for a struggling student to read aloud. It shouldn't be a crutch, but I can picture a kid being shown the entire written text, and then this version of it. Have the kid read the Live Ink version aloud into a microphone and play back the recording for him to hear how it sounds, then try to do that with the "normal" text.

This could really be something huge for education. I'm about to go talk to our special programs director about it, this looks like it could be very useful.

These are basic design issues.

It sounds to me like scientists are over-thinking the problem. These are all basic design problems a designer with good typography skills can resolve. The solution certainly isn't to reinvent how we write.

I see three glaring problems making text difficult to read, especially online.

1) Text blocks are too wide. This is the biggest problem I see. It's difficult to follow progress when you're reading 10pt text running all the way across the screen. One of the biggest things I hate about websites is when they stretch EVERYTHING including text. Open the window too wide and you get these ridiculously long lines of text. Slashdot is guilty of this.

The solution to this is to restrict the width of any copy, even if the page itself can stretch. A line of text shouldn't really be run any longer than roughly 10 long words. I'd say a good example of line width can be found in paperback novels.

2) Not enough leading. Leading is the space between lines. This alone solves the problem mentioned where a reader starts getting distracted by words above and below the sentence currently being read. Again, this is basic design and it's something completely disregarded on the internet where lines of text are crammed together.

The solution here is especially simple. Increase linespace, and I suggest being fairly liberal with spacing.

3) Poor font selection and small point size. The standard browser fonts are somewhat readable. Serif fonts, like Times New Roman, are more legible than san-serif fonts like Verdana and Arial. This is a minor problem but serif fonts are recognized more quiclky. But I'd say font selection is dependent on the overall design of the site. A bigger problem is when someone uses some wacky font that's difficult to read, although this is more of an issue in Flash where fonts can be embedded.

The bigger problem is font size. After all these years with dramatic increases in screen resolutions why are we still reading text online in 10 point? We should be at least at 12 point, and ideally 14pt or higher. There's no need to go huge, but it's time we start utilizing these screen resolutions more effectively. There's no need to cram a novel onto a single page. When a reader encounters a screen crammed with type, psychologically they're overwhelmed and less likely to actually bother reading anything. If course, with all the advertising appearing on some websites it's getting increasingly difficult to design a page that's actually easy to read.

If these scientists want to address online text legibility take a few basic typography courses.

not new

This sounds like the conventional wisdom from your basic Tech Writing class, where the rule of thumb is; at least 50% whitespace on the page.

In fact, childrens' book typesetters have known about this, ever since there have been childrens' books.

Now - for reading text on the web; I've noticed - particularly in ad-supported content, that there's a trend (who am I kidding? It's been the standard for over 10 years now - and before that; ad-supported print) - to condense text to make more room for ads. (which is why the text-size plugins for firefox are so great!).

Sorry, but I'm not too terribly impressed with this "study".