Is a picture worth a thousand words?

Dave Gray at Communication Nation has boiled down a 1997 study in a post, Why You Need to Boil It Down, on his blog. His own conclusions from reviewing the study:

"1. People construct "mental models" when trying to understand how things work

2. Most mental models seem to be made up of 6-12 components

3. A diagram with more then 13 components will probably not become integrated into people's consciousness as a mental model

To me, that means that if you want your system to be understood and integrated into people's thinking as a mental model,

you had better boil it down to a simple picture."

I quickly scanned the study myself, and my primary observation is that its "Conclusions" section offers no conclusions. It states the questions the study was intended to investigate. Grumble, grumble.

The study -- Correction: A picture is worth 84.1 words -- was conducted by Cambridge researcher Alan F. Blackwell.

Participants in the study were asked to describe in words the chart they had produced. It took an average of 84.7 words.

Not to be unfair to Blackwell, I point out that he has done further research which may also be helpful on this subject.

Design 2.0: Minimalism, Transparency, and You

Emily Chang discusses web design reviews recent interviewee's comments on the subject. It is a useful read when you are considering how to "plain language" a web site.
Chang begins with:

The key words that continue to appear in people’s answers:
simple
fast
intuitive
social
minimal
choice
useful
fun

There’s also the echo of key actions:
listen
iterate
release early
experience
discover

Baffling Grammar Advice Dissected

I just love it (see post below) when amateur grammarians and the real ones start quibbling. Here from Zwicky at Language Log is criticism of the baffling grammar of Brian Garner, the grand poobah of legal writing:

Garner's Dictionary of Modern American Usage (Oxford, 2003) warns against relative pronouns with possessive antecedents. Simplifying Garner's example from real life: "There may have been inimical voices raised among the committee, such as Nikolaus Esterhazy's, who just then had had an unpleasant brush with the composer." I am as unhappy with such examples as Garner is. (The history is complex: relative clauses with possessive heads are a survival from much earlier English, and are occasionally to be found in recent times, but now strike most readers as at best awkward. Things are even worse when the possessive has an overt head: "Nikolaus Esterhazy's voice, who just then had had an unpleasant brush with the composer, was especially strong." Still worse: "Nikolaus Esterhazy's, who just then had had an unpleasant brush with the composer, voice was especially strong.")

Ok so far. Such relative clauses are fairly often deprecated in the advice literature. But Garner doesn't stop there; he goes on to say that the proscription is necessary, citing a more general proscription, with an explanation for it:

The relative pronoun who stands for a noun; it shouldn't follow a possessive because the possessive (being an adjective, not a noun) can't properly be its antecedent.

Eek. Now Garner has invoked the Possessive Antecedent Proscription (which he does not otherwise seem to espouse) in its full power, and he's set himself against innocent bystanders like Mary's father adores her. The problem is that if possessives are bad antecedents for relative pronouns because they are adjectives -- they aren't, of course, but Garner thinks they are -- then they're also bad antecedents for personal pronouns like her and she. That's SERIOUS collateral damage.

Have fun while you learn about words

Here is a website for all who love words, but also for those with narrow questions. There are lists of contranyms, negatives without positives, group names for animals, and so on.

Beware of baffling grammatical advice

The Language Log is a useful blog by academics in everyday language.

This particular post (title link above) is a warning not to trust writing advice you get from non-experts, especially on the Web.

Good idea. I try not to talk about grammar because I am no grammarian. Still, I end up doing it, and making my own mistakes.

Check with the language mavens when it's about grammar.

More fun than the usual

Gary Hirsch of On Your Feet, www.oyf.com and www.doodlehouse.com has written a warning that appears at the bottom of all his emails. I believe it is a spoof of all those corporate and legal notices about not reading an email if you are not the intended recipient. But Gary's notice is more friendly:

Spelling and Grammar Notice. This e-mail, and any attachments, contains information that is, or may be, partly composed of words spelled incorrectly. While this is not by intent (often the sender’s brain works faster then his hands), the recipient is granted full permission to use these newly constructed words in future correspondence with anyone they see fit, If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that legally this doesn’t really matter you can use these newly constructed words even if you were not suppose to receive this e-mail (since this probably was sent to you because the sender mistyped the e-mail address). Note that retaining, using, copying, distributing, or otherwise disclosing this information in any manner or in using any of these so-called “typos” is completely allowed and encouraged. Thank you in advance for your coooperation.

Cliche Site

Get your conversions here:

http://clichesite.com/alpha_list.asp?which=lett+1

Themed Fonts

I have been introduced to the themed fonts at TypeNow.net by Lifehacker . Themes are taken from movies, tv, music, and artifacts like PEZ.

These offer a fun way to make your posters and things more eye-catching while truly targeting the font to the desired readers!

Success Begins Today

Blogger John Richardson reports that the freewriting technique is working for him. He invites other suggestions at his blog.

"One technique that I just discovered that is really helping is using a timer to get my creativity going. The process is called freewriting and it actually works really well. It works like this…

1. Open your word processor on your computer
2. Write the topic of your freewriting at the top of the page
3. Set a timer (egg timer works well) for 5 or 10 minutes
4. Write down whatever comes to your mind about your topic
5. Continue writing until the time runs out
6. Do NOT stop until that time.
7. Do not pay attention to typos or grammar
8. Incomplete sentence… keep going
9. Dead end… write the same thing over & over
10. Time over… circle items of interest and key phrases
11. Start on your first draft using these items

This process is amazing. The timer is the key and I find the ideas come quickly. Next time you have writers block try this technique."