http://elrond.informatik.tu-freiberg.de/papers/WorldComp2012/PDP3426.pdf

On 11 August 2013 09:22, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> http://elrond.informatik.tu-freiberg.de/papers/WorldComp2012/PDP3426.pdf

That looks to have been written well over a year ago...  But still a good point in it, whatever happened to std.serialize?


-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';

On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 01:22:34 -0700
Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> http://elrond.informatik.tu-freiberg.de/papers/WorldComp2012/PDP3426.pdf

Holy crap those two-column PDFs are hard to read! Why in the world does academia keep doing that anyway? (Genuine question, not rhetoric)

But the fact that article even exists is really freaking awesome. :)

On Sunday, 11 August 2013 at 15:42:24 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 01:22:34 -0700
> Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>
>> http://elrond.informatik.tu-freiberg.de/papers/WorldComp2012/PDP3426.pdf
>
> Holy crap those two-column PDFs are hard to read! Why in the world does
> academia keep doing that anyway? (Genuine question, not rhetoric)
>
> But the fact that article even exists is really freaking awesome. :)

My guess is simply because it takes more space, making a 4 page article look like a 7 page ;)

On Sunday, 11 August 2013 at 08:48:04 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> ..whatever happened to std.serialize?

I am gathering information to start yet another review/inclusion attempt + waiting for Jacobs confirmation. In progress.

On 8/11/13 8:49 AM, monarch_dodra wrote:
> On Sunday, 11 August 2013 at 15:42:24 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 01:22:34 -0700
>> Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://elrond.informatik.tu-freiberg.de/papers/WorldComp2012/PDP3426.pdf
>>
>> Holy crap those two-column PDFs are hard to read! Why in the world does
>> academia keep doing that anyway? (Genuine question, not rhetoric)
>>
>> But the fact that article even exists is really freaking awesome. :)
>
> My guess is simply because it takes more space, making a 4 page article
> look like a 7 page ;)

Double columns take less space and are more readable.

Andrei

On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 09:28:21 -0700
Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:

> On 8/11/13 8:49 AM, monarch_dodra wrote:
> > On Sunday, 11 August 2013 at 15:42:24 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 01:22:34 -0700
> >> Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> http://elrond.informatik.tu-freiberg.de/papers/WorldComp2012/PDP3426.pdf
> >>
> >> Holy crap those two-column PDFs are hard to read! Why in the world does academia keep doing that anyway? (Genuine question, not rhetoric)
> >>
> >> But the fact that article even exists is really freaking awesome. :)
> >
> > My guess is simply because it takes more space, making a 4 page article look like a 7 page ;)
> 
> Double columns take less space

Per column yes, but overall, no. The same number of chars + same font == same amount of space no matter how you rearrange them.

If anything, double columns take more space due to the inner margin and increased number of line breaks (triggering more word-wrapping and thus more space wasted due to more wrapped words - and that's just as true with justified text as it is with left/right/center-aligned.

> and are more readable.
> 

In *print* double-columns are arguably more readable (although I've honestly never found that to be the case personally, at least when we're talking roughly 8.5" x 11" pages).

But it's certainly not more readable in PDFs, which work like this
(need monospaced font):

       Start
         |         /|
         |        / |
         |  Scroll  |
         |   Up /   |
  Scroll |     /    |  Scroll
   Down	 |    /     |   Down
         |   /      |
         |  /       |
         | /        |
         |/         |
                   /
          /-------/
         /
         |         /|
         |        / |
         |  Scroll  |
         |   Up /   |
  Scroll |     /    |  Scroll
   Down	 |    /     |   Down
         |   /      |
         |  /       |
         | /        |
         |/         |
                   /
          /-------/
         /
         |         /|
         |        / |
         |  Scroll  |
         |   Up /   |
  Scroll |     /    |  Scroll
   Down	 |    /     |   Down
         |   /      |
         |  /       |
         | /        |
         |/         |
                    |
                   End

Of course, you can zoom out enough that the entire page is viewable on one screen so you don't have that ridiculous scroll-dance, but then everything becomes too small to be readable, unless you're one of the rare few who have a monitor that swivels vertically or some ridiculous size like 36" (which isn't applicable to the vast majority of users).

On 8/11/13 10:20 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 09:28:21 -0700
> Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:
>
>> On 8/11/13 8:49 AM, monarch_dodra wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 11 August 2013 at 15:42:24 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 01:22:34 -0700
>>>> Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://elrond.informatik.tu-freiberg.de/papers/WorldComp2012/PDP3426.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Holy crap those two-column PDFs are hard to read! Why in the world
>>>> does academia keep doing that anyway? (Genuine question, not
>>>> rhetoric)
>>>>
>>>> But the fact that article even exists is really freaking
>>>> awesome. :)
>>>
>>> My guess is simply because it takes more space, making a 4 page
>>> article look like a 7 page ;)
>>
>> Double columns take less space
>
> Per column yes, but overall, no. The same number of chars + same font
> == same amount of space no matter how you rearrange them.
>
> If anything, double columns take more space due to the inner margin and
> increased number of line breaks (triggering more word-wrapping and thus
> more space wasted due to more wrapped words - and that's just as true
> with justified text as it is with left/right/center-aligned.

For a column of text to be readable it should have not much more than 10 words per line. Going beyond that forces eyes to scan too jerkily and causes difficulty in following line breaks. Filling an A4 or letter paper with only one column would force either (a) an unusually large font, (b) very large margins, or (c) too many words per line. Children books choose (a), which is why many do come in that format. LaTeX and Word choose (b) in single-column documents.

>> and are more readable.
>>
>
> In *print* double-columns are arguably more readable (although I've
> honestly never found that to be the case personally, at least when
> we're talking roughly 8.5" x 11" pages).
>
> But it's certainly not more readable in PDFs, which work like this
> (need monospaced font):
>
>         Start
>           |         /|
>           |        / |
>           |  Scroll  |
>           |   Up /   |
>    Scroll |     /    |  Scroll
>     Down	 |    /     |   Down
>           |   /      |
>           |  /       |
>           | /        |
>           |/         |
>                     /
>            /-------/
>           /
>           |         /|
>           |        / |
>           |  Scroll  |
>           |   Up /   |
>    Scroll |     /    |  Scroll
>     Down	 |    /     |   Down
>           |   /      |
>           |  /       |
>           | /        |
>           |/         |
>                     /
>            /-------/
>           /
>           |         /|
>           |        / |
>           |  Scroll  |
>           |   Up /   |
>    Scroll |     /    |  Scroll
>     Down	 |    /     |   Down
>           |   /      |
>           |  /       |
>           | /        |
>           |/         |
>                      |
>                     End

Multicolumn is best for screen reading, too. The only problem is there's no good flowing - the columns should fit the screen. There's work on that, see e.g. http://alistapart.com/article/css3multicolumn.


Andrei

On Sunday, 11 August 2013 at 18:25:02 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 8/11/13 10:20 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 09:28:21 -0700
>> Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/11/13 8:49 AM, monarch_dodra wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 11 August 2013 at 15:42:24 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 01:22:34 -0700
>>>>> Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://elrond.informatik.tu-freiberg.de/papers/WorldComp2012/PDP3426.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Holy crap those two-column PDFs are hard to read! Why in the world
>>>>> does academia keep doing that anyway? (Genuine question, not
>>>>> rhetoric)
>>>>>
>>>>> But the fact that article even exists is really freaking
>>>>> awesome. :)
>>>>
>>>> My guess is simply because it takes more space, making a 4 page
>>>> article look like a 7 page ;)
>>>
>>> Double columns take less space
>>
>> Per column yes, but overall, no. The same number of chars + same font
>> == same amount of space no matter how you rearrange them.
>>
>> If anything, double columns take more space due to the inner margin and
>> increased number of line breaks (triggering more word-wrapping and thus
>> more space wasted due to more wrapped words - and that's just as true
>> with justified text as it is with left/right/center-aligned.
>
> For a column of text to be readable it should have not much more than 10 words per line. Going beyond that forces eyes to scan too jerkily and causes difficulty in following line breaks. Filling an A4 or letter paper with only one column would force either (a) an unusually large font, (b) very large margins, or (c) too many words per line. Children books choose (a), which is why many do come in that format. LaTeX and Word choose (b) in single-column documents.
>
>>> and are more readable.
>>>
>>
>> In *print* double-columns are arguably more readable (although I've
>> honestly never found that to be the case personally, at least when
>> we're talking roughly 8.5" x 11" pages).
>>
>> But it's certainly not more readable in PDFs, which work like this
>> (need monospaced font):
>>
>>        Start
>>          |         /|
>>          |        / |
>>          |  Scroll  |
>>          |   Up /   |
>>   Scroll |     /    |  Scroll
>>    Down	 |    /     |   Down
>>          |   /      |
>>          |  /       |
>>          | /        |
>>          |/         |
>>                    /
>>           /-------/
>>          /
>>          |         /|
>>          |        / |
>>          |  Scroll  |
>>          |   Up /   |
>>   Scroll |     /    |  Scroll
>>    Down	 |    /     |   Down
>>          |   /      |
>>          |  /       |
>>          | /        |
>>          |/         |
>>                    /
>>           /-------/
>>          /
>>          |         /|
>>          |        / |
>>          |  Scroll  |
>>          |   Up /   |
>>   Scroll |     /    |  Scroll
>>    Down	 |    /     |   Down
>>          |   /      |
>>          |  /       |
>>          | /        |
>>          |/         |
>>                     |
>>                    End
>
> Multicolumn is best for screen reading, too. The only problem is there's no good flowing - the columns should fit the screen. There's work on that, see e.g. http://alistapart.com/article/css3multicolumn.
>
>
> Andrei

I really wish this was more popular:
__________________
|       |        |
|   1   |   2    |
|       |        |
|       |        |
|----------------|
|       |        |
|   3   |   4    |
|       |        |
|       |        |
___ page break ___
|       |        |
|       |        |
|   1   |   2    |
|       |        |
|----------------|
|       |        |
|       |        |
|   3   |   4    |
|       |        |

This allows a multi-column layout with less scrolling. The aspect ratio on my screen is just about perfect to fit half of a page at a time. I don't understand why this is rarely taken advantage of... For example, I like G+'s layout because posts seem to be layed out L->R, T->B like so:

|  1  |  2  |  3  |
|  4  |  2  |  3  |
|  4  |  2  |  5  |
|  6  |  7  |  5  |

Why can't we get the same for academic papers? They're even simpler because each section can be forced to be the same size.

On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 11:25:02 -0700
Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:
> 
> For a column of text to be readable it should have not much more than
> 10 words per line. Going beyond that forces eyes to scan too jerkily
> and causes difficulty in following line breaks. Filling an A4 or
> letter paper with only one column would force either (a) an unusually
> large font, (b) very large margins, or (c) too many words per line.
> Children books choose (a), which is why many do come in that format.
> LaTeX and Word choose (b) in single-column documents.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Multicolumn is best for screen reading, too. The only problem is there's no good flowing - the columns should fit the screen. There's work on that, see e.g. http://alistapart.com/article/css3multicolumn.
> 

A. HTML has good flowing, and has had it since freaking v1. No need for
upcoming CSS tricks: As long as the author doesn't go and do something
retarded like use a fixed layout or this new "zoom out whenever the
window shrinks" lunacy, then all any user ever has to do is adjust
the window to their liking. If someone expands their browser to be
two-feet wide and ends up with too much text per line, then really they
have no one to blame but their own dumbass self.

B. There's nothing stopping authors from making their PDFs a
single-column at whatever line width works well. Like I said,
personally I've never found 8" line width at a normal font size to be
even the slightest hint harder than 10 words per line (in fact,
sometimes I find 10 words per line to be *harder* due to such
frequent line breaks), *but* if the author wants to do 10 words per
line in a PDF, there's *nothing* in PDF stopping them from doing that
without immediately sacrificing those gains, and more, by
going multi-column.

Bottom line, obviously multi-column PDF is a bad situation, but we already *have* multiple dead-simple solutions even without throwing our hands up and saying "Oh, well, there's no good *multi-column* solution ATM, so I have no way to make my document readable without waiting for a reflowing-PDF or CSS5 or 6 or 7 or whatever."

An obsessive desire for multi-column appears to be getting in the way of academic documents that have halfway decent readability. Meanwhile, the *rest* of the word just doesn't bother, uses single-column, and gets by perfectly fine with entirely readable documents (Well, except when they put out webpages with gigantic sizes, grey-on-white text, and double-spacing - Now *that* makes things *really* hard to read. Gives me a headache every single time - and it's always committed by the very people who *think* they're doing it to be more readable. Gack.)

I *really* wish PDF would die. It's great for printed stuff, but its mere existence just does far more harm than good. Designers are already far too tempted to treat computers like a freaking sheet of paper - PDF just clinches it for them.