Are two spaces better than one? Feedback on new research
Several people asked me to comment on a new scientific study called “Two gaps are better than one? The effect of the intervals after the points and commas in the process of reading ", conducted by Rebecca Johnson, Becky Booy and Lindsay Schmitt.
With an apparent contradiction to the rule of Betteridge, the study claims that two spaces after the dot make it easier to read. It also contradicts my longtime advice to use only one space between sentences .
Since the study costs $ 39.95 per PDF, I’m sure that skeptics from social networks rushed to declare two spaces to win without buying and reading the work itself. But I did both.
')
(A secret for researchers of two spaces: I propose to think about publishing a document for free, since this may be the last time your research topic follows a massive online obsession).
Indeed, the authors found that the two spaces after the dot give a "small", but "statistically ... significant" improvement in the speed of reading - by about 3% - but it is curious that only those readers who already use two spaces after the dot when printing. For the usual "single-stalkers," no improvement was noticed.
In addition, the researchers checked only samples of monospace font on the screen (approximately the same as shown below). They have not tested proportional fonts, which themselves are called much more common. They also did not test the effect of two spaces on the printed text. The authors acknowledge that any of these options for organizing the test may affect the results.
As a result, there is a small difference, and only in a limited category of respondents, with numerous reservations. I'm afraid there's nothing interesting.
Of course, I do not argue with the study. This is a science! I have only a few questions mentioned below. But in general, this is an example of why readability research often does not bring much benefit to practicing typographers. Typography is wide and deep, and research can test only narrow assumptions.
Although I will continue to read future research on this topic - if the budget allows, - but first of all I want to agree with the final thought of the researchers: "Probably there are more important things worthy of such passionate disputes."
Perhaps the passionate debate on stupid topics is the raison d'être of the Internet. For ten years the trolls have been trying to draw me into an argument about two spaces. At first, I indulged them. But not for long.
Why? Spoiler: I really do not care how many spaces you put between sentences . One? Two? Seven? π / 4? Everyone goes crazy in their own way.
Typography is not a science. As in the language itself, there are some structural and practical conventions. If your goal is to influence the reader, then it is better to be aware of these conventions, because they can help. Conversely, a departure from these conventions may have undesirable consequences.
But in the end it's your business. I have never presented myself as the best expert or typographic police. I try to teach writers these typographical conventions, because traditionally they are not taught in language and literature classes. (Although they should, because in the digital era typography skills seem just as important as typing skills).
Even if Genotype Typography would give me one wish, I would not spend it on eliminating the extra spaces between the sentences. I would correct the excessive use of CAPSA, which is a really bad habit.
If there is room for maneuver and choice, I say this. The reader should work out his own judgment about typography, and not just adopt my opinion as a victim of cargo cult . I strictly adhere to those typographical agreements that are firmly rooted. In other words: let's not waste our strength challenging the undeniable.
That's why I start with one space between sentences . Not because it is so important. And because the rule is so well rooted. This is a litmus test for skeptics of typography: if you cannot agree that professional typographers always use one space between sentences, you will probably find other rules generally boring.
Ten years ago, I challenged skeptics: show at least one book, newspaper or magazine that uses two spaces between sentences. No one has done so far.
Once I talked about typography to a group of law professors at the University of California. In the end, one of them, an empiricalist well-known at the faculty, said: “Matthew, this is all very interesting, but why don't typographers solve these issues through empirical research? It is impossible, after all, to leave for a subjective consideration which font is better. ”
“Great idea, professor. By the way, you investigated, what article with the review of the law rather contributes to the extension of your position at the university? How many words should there be in the first sentence? Average number of vowels in a paragraph? "
I did not say this, just thought. Obviously, this was not a serious question. The professor considered typography a stupid topic, so he dismissed it with empirical argument: not enough objective research.
What I actually said to him is more like this: "Typography - like language and any other form of human expression - does not belong to the field of strict objective truth."
A good selection of useful research over many years can be found in Sophie Beyer's book, Letters to Read: Designed for Readability (see bibliography ).
This does not mean that typographers are hostile to the idea of research, or that readability cannot be checked emirically. On the contrary, many fonts appeared as a result of empirical research, for example:
The examples above have one important common feature. In each case, the designer was instructed to optimize readability in a particular context . Therefore, it was enough to narrow the topic of the research to make the results verifiable. (It is important that for these projects there was also a customer who paid for testing). In turn, these tests gave fairly accurate results to become a specific guide to font design. In short, empirical studies have proven to be useful precisely because of the narrowness of the problem area.
Let us return to the question of the professor of law: if we continue the process, can we find the best font for everything? Looks hopeless. Studies are inherently testing narrow problems. As I said in the article “What is good typography,” typography cannot be reduced to a mathematical problem with one correct answer. Similarly, it is difficult to imagine a narrow study of fonts, the results of which are extrapolated to any possible context.
However, although empirical research does not solve many typographical problems, typography cannot be called the domain of pure whim. For different problems, you can formulate typographical criteria and understand which solutions are not suitable for them. Indeed, the intended context is always useful to “explore” before developing a typographic solution. For example, for presentations, I recommend turning off the light while working on slides in order to better imitate the situation in the audience. This is not empirical research. But better than nothing.
Thus, typography functions like the written language itself. We can - and should - pragmatically narrow the space of opportunity. But in the choice of these possibilities art, humanity and expressiveness manifest. As no one calls the best offer for the beginning of a scientific article , so no one will choose the best font for it.
Thus, if during the evaluation of a study, the question “What did it find?” First arises, then the next question will be “What did it check at all?”
First, make it clear that this study did not verify. Although the article quotes 48 sources — many psychologists and some of the aforementioned Internet critics — it clearly does not quote any typography experts. Neither me, nor Eric Spykermann , nor Robert Bringhurst , nor Ellen Lupton , nor Brian Garner , nor the Chicago style manual , anything at all.
But it seems right. Why? None of us adheres to this rule as an empirical statement. We also do not invite to disputes. We simply announce that there is a long-standing convention based on professional practice: one gap. We do not offer a deep explanation for this rule - no more than a dictionary tries to explain why love , carrots and mother-in-law do not rhyme. I do not even argue that the rule has always been like this (this is not so) or always will be (typographical practice is changing, albeit slowly). But here and now the practice - and therefore the rules - is quite clear.
I think that the authors of the study made a mistake, starting with an erroneous premise: “There were many discussions on how many spaces should follow the period,” and then summing up the “arguments ... from both sides.” This is a dubious foundation for a scientific thesis, because it establishes a false equivalence. What would we think if the newspaper article began “There were a lot of discussions about whether people landed on the moon ...”? The fact that some on Reddit have been discussing this topic for a long time does not mean that there are “many discussions” in a reasonable sense. It would be more fair to recognize: “The established practice provides for one gap, although a dedicated minority still favors two. We wanted to find out: is there an empirical difference? ”
The error of false equivalence also makes me think about the true motives of this study. The authors seem interested in justifying the American Psychological Association, which several years ago standardized two spaces in its style guide. As explained in the document, the APA initially justified the decision on the basis of "ease of reading comprehension," despite the "lack of direct empirical evidence in support of these statements." But the final paragraph of the article begins: "As a result, the current results provide empirical data for the change made to the APA manual, which defines ... two spaces." Why does any research psychologist spend time and budget on this? Moreover, the APA has already come to terms with the prevailing practice. Riddle. [Supplement: lead author Rebecca Johnson confirmed in an interview that the purpose of the study was an empirical justification of APA].
Not sure what conclusion should be made about the professional association of scientists, which rejects evidence and authority in other areas.
One way or another, back to science. The study measures the difference in the efficiency of reading paragraphs with different numbers of spaces: one and two spaces after periods and, interestingly, after commas. As students, 60 Skidmore students were invited, "speakers of American English with normal or adjusted to normal vision." In the study, the subjects first typed a paragraph of text so that the researchers could classify each of them as accustomed to one or two spaces — also an interesting part of the experiment.
After this, the subjects were asked to read a series of 20 “experimental paragraphs” from 71 to 166 words. To confirm the understanding, after each point, an understanding question was asked Thus, the reading speed and accuracy of understanding were determined. In addition, during reading with the help of a special device, the direction of gaze of each subject was tracked to collect additional data on the effect of gaps on reading.
So what did these "experimental paragraphs" look like? The article says that the text was set “Courier New font with a size of 14 points” with a “fourfold” line spacing , which I understand as 56 points. The authors do not mention the width of the lines, nor the color of the font, nor the background (although these parameters would also affect readability).
So, here is my best guess, what this text looked like, is to take a paragraph from 84 words:
Paragraphs were not printed, but displayed on the “21-inch NEC Accusync 120 monitor” running on Windows (no version indicated). This CRT display, released in 2002, supports resolutions up to 1600 × 1200 pixels. However, CRTs can work with multiple resolutions, and the document does not say exactly what was used in this case — another parameter that affects readability, since it changes the visible font size. However, this is roughly what you can find at the department of psychology at the liberal arts college - the equipment installed two technological cycles ago - although not what most readers use today.
To get a more accurate impression of the actual display, here is the same text displayed by the Windows XP virtual machine:
At first, I said that I agreed with the study and its conclusions. Nevertheless, I can not fail to note that such a style of typography can in no way be called either customary or realistic. This applies to both monospaced font , and to the size , and to the line spacing . (Of course, the paragraph in the example does not correspond to the most basic rules of the main text given on this site "Practical typography"). Perhaps these differences help isolate the problem of two spaces with respect to one. Or maybe they specifically exacerbate the problem, making the surrounding text more difficult to read. Given that in a previous text readability study, lead researcher Rebecca Johnson used Calibri with normal spaces.
Maybe I am biased and unfair? I do not think. Researchers mention these details so that others can evaluate the accuracy of their methods and, therefore, their conclusions. They are inextricably linked. But no typographer will protect the readability of text in Windows on a 2002 CRT display. It was terrible already then, and now it is even worse. Today, text even on entry-level smartphones is easier to read. And although none of the monospaced font shows the wonders of readability, Courier New is one of the worst in this sense. At one time, I described it as "disgusting ... skinny, lumpy and simply ugly."
There is no evidence that the researchers consulted the printer on the format of the study. For me it would be better consulted. Not because others understand better. Rather, because such cooperation could lead to the organization of tests with more fruitful results. In its current form, the researchers tested the readability of text from typewriters . Since the computer is able to display any font of any size, it is better to use a wider variety of typography. Given the ease of printing samples, in my opinion it is not necessary to rely only on the ancient CRT.
But as I said, I am not the typographic police. And definitely not the typographic-scientific police. Although I accept the conclusions of the study, the typographical conditions seem excessively - and unnecessarily - artificial. Yes, science is real. But this is a double-edged sword. We pledge to follow in the footsteps wherever they lead. But sometimes traces lead far and lost.
We give tribute to the authors, they do not overestimate their findings. (Well, except for the title of the work). According to the study, there are “statistically significant and ... detectable” improvements due to two spaces after the dot: some subjects read text passages more quickly without losing understanding.
But this conclusion is accompanied by significant reservations:
But the main thing that negates all the results. Recall that the subjects divided the subjects into two groups: those who usually type the text with one space and those who type with two. "Small" improvements in reading speed were found only in those subjects, "who have already adhered to this convention with two spaces." For the rest, no advantage was found.
For me, this is the most interesting part of the study. Here is a chart with the results (on the left, those who type with one space, on the right - with two):
Note the four aspects of the chart.
No, I am not ready to put forward theories, why “two-starters”, as a rule, are faster to read than “single-bone-makers”. I'll leave this question to the Internet hordes for disputes over the next few years. It will be a good change of topic.
Meanwhile, my advice remains the same: one space between sentences. Since the study showed benefits for only one group of readers, I also declare the Betteridge rule intact. Are two spaces better than one? Not. I just saved you $ 39.95.
* I am sure that no one will change their minds at the American Psychological Association. As well as the other fans of the two spaces. But it was inevitable.
* Even if you insist on extra space between sentences, entering two spaces is an outdated method. Modern computers rely on Unicode with many wider spaces for this purpose. I will give honor to the one who declares: “I am not speaking for the double space, but for the space of the code point 2002 ”.
* Lifehacker dryly notes that “Dr. Johnson ... and her colleagues published their article in the APA style with two spaces after the dots, but the scientific journal Attention, Perception and Psychophysics [who published the article] edited [her] and eliminated double spaces.”
With an apparent contradiction to the rule of Betteridge, the study claims that two spaces after the dot make it easier to read. It also contradicts my longtime advice to use only one space between sentences .
Since the study costs $ 39.95 per PDF, I’m sure that skeptics from social networks rushed to declare two spaces to win without buying and reading the work itself. But I did both.
')
(A secret for researchers of two spaces: I propose to think about publishing a document for free, since this may be the last time your research topic follows a massive online obsession).
Indeed, the authors found that the two spaces after the dot give a "small", but "statistically ... significant" improvement in the speed of reading - by about 3% - but it is curious that only those readers who already use two spaces after the dot when printing. For the usual "single-stalkers," no improvement was noticed.
In addition, the researchers checked only samples of monospace font on the screen (approximately the same as shown below). They have not tested proportional fonts, which themselves are called much more common. They also did not test the effect of two spaces on the printed text. The authors acknowledge that any of these options for organizing the test may affect the results.
As a result, there is a small difference, and only in a limited category of respondents, with numerous reservations. I'm afraid there's nothing interesting.
Of course, I do not argue with the study. This is a science! I have only a few questions mentioned below. But in general, this is an example of why readability research often does not bring much benefit to practicing typographers. Typography is wide and deep, and research can test only narrow assumptions.
Although I will continue to read future research on this topic - if the budget allows, - but first of all I want to agree with the final thought of the researchers: "Probably there are more important things worthy of such passionate disputes."
To battle
Perhaps the passionate debate on stupid topics is the raison d'être of the Internet. For ten years the trolls have been trying to draw me into an argument about two spaces. At first, I indulged them. But not for long.
Why? Spoiler: I really do not care how many spaces you put between sentences . One? Two? Seven? π / 4? Everyone goes crazy in their own way.
Typography is not a science. As in the language itself, there are some structural and practical conventions. If your goal is to influence the reader, then it is better to be aware of these conventions, because they can help. Conversely, a departure from these conventions may have undesirable consequences.
But in the end it's your business. I have never presented myself as the best expert or typographic police. I try to teach writers these typographical conventions, because traditionally they are not taught in language and literature classes. (Although they should, because in the digital era typography skills seem just as important as typing skills).
Even if Genotype Typography would give me one wish, I would not spend it on eliminating the extra spaces between the sentences. I would correct the excessive use of CAPSA, which is a really bad habit.
If there is room for maneuver and choice, I say this. The reader should work out his own judgment about typography, and not just adopt my opinion as a victim of cargo cult . I strictly adhere to those typographical agreements that are firmly rooted. In other words: let's not waste our strength challenging the undeniable.
That's why I start with one space between sentences . Not because it is so important. And because the rule is so well rooted. This is a litmus test for skeptics of typography: if you cannot agree that professional typographers always use one space between sentences, you will probably find other rules generally boring.
Ten years ago, I challenged skeptics: show at least one book, newspaper or magazine that uses two spaces between sentences. No one has done so far.
Research role
Once I talked about typography to a group of law professors at the University of California. In the end, one of them, an empiricalist well-known at the faculty, said: “Matthew, this is all very interesting, but why don't typographers solve these issues through empirical research? It is impossible, after all, to leave for a subjective consideration which font is better. ”
“Great idea, professor. By the way, you investigated, what article with the review of the law rather contributes to the extension of your position at the university? How many words should there be in the first sentence? Average number of vowels in a paragraph? "
I did not say this, just thought. Obviously, this was not a serious question. The professor considered typography a stupid topic, so he dismissed it with empirical argument: not enough objective research.
What I actually said to him is more like this: "Typography - like language and any other form of human expression - does not belong to the field of strict objective truth."
A good selection of useful research over many years can be found in Sophie Beyer's book, Letters to Read: Designed for Readability (see bibliography ).
This does not mean that typographers are hostile to the idea of research, or that readability cannot be checked emirically. On the contrary, many fonts appeared as a result of empirical research, for example:
- Retina Font is designed (originally for the Wall Street Journal ) to stay legible on low-quality newsprint. Designer Tobias Frere-Jones studied how ink was spread on newsprint, and made cuts to make up for it. Although these “ink traps” look weird on large sizes, they are invisible on small sizes. And instead of the strange bubble shapes, the letters just look right.
- A new Clearview font designed by Don Meeker and James Montalbano has been approved for use on federal highways. Road signs must be readable by drivers at various speeds and light levels - and the font has been tested in these conditions.
- Microsoft's Sitka font, designed by Matthew Carter, also emerged as a result of screen readability studies in Windows.
The examples above have one important common feature. In each case, the designer was instructed to optimize readability in a particular context . Therefore, it was enough to narrow the topic of the research to make the results verifiable. (It is important that for these projects there was also a customer who paid for testing). In turn, these tests gave fairly accurate results to become a specific guide to font design. In short, empirical studies have proven to be useful precisely because of the narrowness of the problem area.
Let us return to the question of the professor of law: if we continue the process, can we find the best font for everything? Looks hopeless. Studies are inherently testing narrow problems. As I said in the article “What is good typography,” typography cannot be reduced to a mathematical problem with one correct answer. Similarly, it is difficult to imagine a narrow study of fonts, the results of which are extrapolated to any possible context.
However, although empirical research does not solve many typographical problems, typography cannot be called the domain of pure whim. For different problems, you can formulate typographical criteria and understand which solutions are not suitable for them. Indeed, the intended context is always useful to “explore” before developing a typographic solution. For example, for presentations, I recommend turning off the light while working on slides in order to better imitate the situation in the audience. This is not empirical research. But better than nothing.
Thus, typography functions like the written language itself. We can - and should - pragmatically narrow the space of opportunity. But in the choice of these possibilities art, humanity and expressiveness manifest. As no one calls the best offer for the beginning of a scientific article , so no one will choose the best font for it.
Evaluation of a new study
Thus, if during the evaluation of a study, the question “What did it find?” First arises, then the next question will be “What did it check at all?”
First, make it clear that this study did not verify. Although the article quotes 48 sources — many psychologists and some of the aforementioned Internet critics — it clearly does not quote any typography experts. Neither me, nor Eric Spykermann , nor Robert Bringhurst , nor Ellen Lupton , nor Brian Garner , nor the Chicago style manual , anything at all.
But it seems right. Why? None of us adheres to this rule as an empirical statement. We also do not invite to disputes. We simply announce that there is a long-standing convention based on professional practice: one gap. We do not offer a deep explanation for this rule - no more than a dictionary tries to explain why love , carrots and mother-in-law do not rhyme. I do not even argue that the rule has always been like this (this is not so) or always will be (typographical practice is changing, albeit slowly). But here and now the practice - and therefore the rules - is quite clear.
I think that the authors of the study made a mistake, starting with an erroneous premise: “There were many discussions on how many spaces should follow the period,” and then summing up the “arguments ... from both sides.” This is a dubious foundation for a scientific thesis, because it establishes a false equivalence. What would we think if the newspaper article began “There were a lot of discussions about whether people landed on the moon ...”? The fact that some on Reddit have been discussing this topic for a long time does not mean that there are “many discussions” in a reasonable sense. It would be more fair to recognize: “The established practice provides for one gap, although a dedicated minority still favors two. We wanted to find out: is there an empirical difference? ”
The error of false equivalence also makes me think about the true motives of this study. The authors seem interested in justifying the American Psychological Association, which several years ago standardized two spaces in its style guide. As explained in the document, the APA initially justified the decision on the basis of "ease of reading comprehension," despite the "lack of direct empirical evidence in support of these statements." But the final paragraph of the article begins: "As a result, the current results provide empirical data for the change made to the APA manual, which defines ... two spaces." Why does any research psychologist spend time and budget on this? Moreover, the APA has already come to terms with the prevailing practice. Riddle. [Supplement: lead author Rebecca Johnson confirmed in an interview that the purpose of the study was an empirical justification of APA].
Not sure what conclusion should be made about the professional association of scientists, which rejects evidence and authority in other areas.
One way or another, back to science. The study measures the difference in the efficiency of reading paragraphs with different numbers of spaces: one and two spaces after periods and, interestingly, after commas. As students, 60 Skidmore students were invited, "speakers of American English with normal or adjusted to normal vision." In the study, the subjects first typed a paragraph of text so that the researchers could classify each of them as accustomed to one or two spaces — also an interesting part of the experiment.
After this, the subjects were asked to read a series of 20 “experimental paragraphs” from 71 to 166 words. To confirm the understanding, after each point, an understanding question was asked Thus, the reading speed and accuracy of understanding were determined. In addition, during reading with the help of a special device, the direction of gaze of each subject was tracked to collect additional data on the effect of gaps on reading.
Typography in the study
So what did these "experimental paragraphs" look like? The article says that the text was set “Courier New font with a size of 14 points” with a “fourfold” line spacing , which I understand as 56 points. The authors do not mention the width of the lines, nor the color of the font, nor the background (although these parameters would also affect readability).
So, here is my best guess, what this text looked like, is to take a paragraph from 84 words:
,
, .
, , ,
, , ,
-
. ,
. .
, , , ,
.Paragraphs were not printed, but displayed on the “21-inch NEC Accusync 120 monitor” running on Windows (no version indicated). This CRT display, released in 2002, supports resolutions up to 1600 × 1200 pixels. However, CRTs can work with multiple resolutions, and the document does not say exactly what was used in this case — another parameter that affects readability, since it changes the visible font size. However, this is roughly what you can find at the department of psychology at the liberal arts college - the equipment installed two technological cycles ago - although not what most readers use today.
To get a more accurate impression of the actual display, here is the same text displayed by the Windows XP virtual machine:
At first, I said that I agreed with the study and its conclusions. Nevertheless, I can not fail to note that such a style of typography can in no way be called either customary or realistic. This applies to both monospaced font , and to the size , and to the line spacing . (Of course, the paragraph in the example does not correspond to the most basic rules of the main text given on this site "Practical typography"). Perhaps these differences help isolate the problem of two spaces with respect to one. Or maybe they specifically exacerbate the problem, making the surrounding text more difficult to read. Given that in a previous text readability study, lead researcher Rebecca Johnson used Calibri with normal spaces.
Maybe I am biased and unfair? I do not think. Researchers mention these details so that others can evaluate the accuracy of their methods and, therefore, their conclusions. They are inextricably linked. But no typographer will protect the readability of text in Windows on a 2002 CRT display. It was terrible already then, and now it is even worse. Today, text even on entry-level smartphones is easier to read. And although none of the monospaced font shows the wonders of readability, Courier New is one of the worst in this sense. At one time, I described it as "disgusting ... skinny, lumpy and simply ugly."
There is no evidence that the researchers consulted the printer on the format of the study. For me it would be better consulted. Not because others understand better. Rather, because such cooperation could lead to the organization of tests with more fruitful results. In its current form, the researchers tested the readability of text from typewriters . Since the computer is able to display any font of any size, it is better to use a wider variety of typography. Given the ease of printing samples, in my opinion it is not necessary to rely only on the ancient CRT.
But as I said, I am not the typographic police. And definitely not the typographic-scientific police. Although I accept the conclusions of the study, the typographical conditions seem excessively - and unnecessarily - artificial. Yes, science is real. But this is a double-edged sword. We pledge to follow in the footsteps wherever they lead. But sometimes traces lead far and lost.
Research results
We give tribute to the authors, they do not overestimate their findings. (Well, except for the title of the work). According to the study, there are “statistically significant and ... detectable” improvements due to two spaces after the dot: some subjects read text passages more quickly without losing understanding.
But this conclusion is accompanied by significant reservations:
- The measured improvement was in the speed of reading, not in the understanding of the text, and it turned out to be “small in size” - about 3%.
- "The accuracy of understanding was high under all conditions." That is, the understanding has not improved from two spaces instead of one.
- "Expressions ... were relatively short and perhaps not long enough or difficult to detect subtle differences" between one and two spaces.
- The authors acknowledge the problem I mentioned above: that “paragraphs ... are presented in a fixed width font” and that “word processors today use proportional fonts”.
- They also acknowledge my more general point of view about unnatural examples and that the results “may differ if presented by other fonts (or other writing systems)”.
But the main thing that negates all the results. Recall that the subjects divided the subjects into two groups: those who usually type the text with one space and those who type with two. "Small" improvements in reading speed were found only in those subjects, "who have already adhered to this convention with two spaces." For the rest, no advantage was found.
For me, this is the most interesting part of the study. Here is a chart with the results (on the left, those who type with one space, on the right - with two):
Note the four aspects of the chart.
- In “single-whitewaters,” the reading speed practically does not change regardless of gaps.
- The “two-whale” shows a significant improvement in the speed of reading when reading text at intervals that correspond to their own style of typing — that is, two spaces after the dots and one space after the commas.
- No specific interval pattern speeds up or slows down reading in both groups.
- And one more important result: “two-gangsters” always read the text faster, regardless of the intervals ! This raises a giant red flag stating that the results of the study were not influenced by the number of spaces, but by other factors not directly verified.
No, I am not ready to put forward theories, why “two-starters”, as a rule, are faster to read than “single-bone-makers”. I'll leave this question to the Internet hordes for disputes over the next few years. It will be a good change of topic.
Meanwhile, my advice remains the same: one space between sentences. Since the study showed benefits for only one group of readers, I also declare the Betteridge rule intact. Are two spaces better than one? Not. I just saved you $ 39.95.
Notes
* I am sure that no one will change their minds at the American Psychological Association. As well as the other fans of the two spaces. But it was inevitable.
* Even if you insist on extra space between sentences, entering two spaces is an outdated method. Modern computers rely on Unicode with many wider spaces for this purpose. I will give honor to the one who declares: “I am not speaking for the double space, but for the space of the code point 2002 ”.
* Lifehacker dryly notes that “Dr. Johnson ... and her colleagues published their article in the APA style with two spaces after the dots, but the scientific journal Attention, Perception and Psychophysics [who published the article] edited [her] and eliminated double spaces.”
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/358474/
All Articles