Posted by dorayme on 10/25/07 21:53

In article
<WA%Ti.272807$ax1.57630@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote:

> rf wrote:
>
> > dorayme, you should mention *before* citing the following URL that the
> > advice contained therein is bad advice and totally outdated.
> >
> >> hXXp://www.basictips.com/which-font-size-px-pt-em.shtml
>
> I was thinking the same thing. <g>
>

So was I when I read it online! I thought, yeah, maybe that is
what some people do, they see a url and click on it without
taking in the field of view. Martian peripheral vision is
different you know. And, of course this is the essential
drawback, I was thinking: ... and they might not come back to the
post and simply go away *getting the wrong impression*! That is,
I take it, the objection. And indeed, who can know what a Googler
Woogler might do. <g>

But one more thing I was thinking: it is a particularly salutary
and shocking thing to read with an impression that something is
right and to be suddenly pulled up to find it is in fact all
wrong. It is something not so easily forgotten. It is very hard
for people who know this stuff to see such a thing. It is assumed
on the basis of not a lot of experimental educational theory that
such a technique is counter productive. I call this "Naive
Regular Flow". There are arguments and stats showing the human
brain can sometimes be more impressed by disconfirmation than
confirmation.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]