Many people I know report greater success at spotting errors while proofreading a printed page. Is this due to the superior resolution of the letters? Is age (i. e. exposure to digital technology at an earlier or later stage in one's life) a significant variable?
Although initially I always used to proofread on hardcopy, I switched to screen-based to save paper - I've probably saved a forest by doing so. Now, I don't notice any difference in how quickly I complete a proofreading task (whether sent electronically or the occassional one by post), so I think it has more to do with becoming accustomed to one medium or the other.
That is exactly what I was looking for, Hannes. The information coincides largely with my subjective experience. Thank you very much!
I send my best wishes for a happy and fruitful new year to all who have contributed to this thread.
David
Reading and writing on computer monitors and printed papers, are certainly somewhat different. I try to stick on computer monitors as I used to stick on papers to read. But after some days, the problems of headache, eyes and sleeplessness starts.
At present we are living in global community, and communication of information is base for creating such community. Electronic communication is fast, and we have to be habitual of such technologies. Improvement in devices may support better to read on screens also.
Perception plays a key role in reading. I find editing perceptually better if I print the hard copy because my exposure to the light from digital gadgets have a toll on my eye health.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Books