Communication Options -- Displayed in Varying Densities

Do not assume that one choice suits all.

Consider for the moment just a few distinctions. Do you want feedback? Verbal communication allows for the easiest and most immediate feedback, print for the least, with electronic somewhere in the middle. Does presenting your results require extensive mathematical notation? With appropriate typesetting tools, print permits the most accurate, durable presentations; verbal discussions require time and tools for annotation; and certain electronic tools remain woefully inadequate for accurate notation. How much background is needed to understand your results? Electronic hyperlinks let you provide extensive background unobtrusively. Print media permit some background and cross-referencing through citations, footnotes, and appendices. Verbal sessions are least appropriate for a truly mixed audience: you talk over the heads of half the audience while boring the other half.

Compare the look of next few statements to that of the paragraph above:

• Research is showing that:
  • sans-serif fonts (e.g., Geneva) are easiest to read online,
  • with-serif fonts (e.g., Times) are easiest to read in print.
• Books or articles require smooth-flowing prose.
  Short, terse lists are most appropriate online.
• "White space" is cheap online, expensive in print.
• In general, what looks best in print looks bad online, and vice versa.

Note that neither the "prose" nor the "online" examples above are optimized for use as overheads during a talk...

Back: Communication Options

Copyright © 1995-1996, The Geometry Center, University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Please request permission to reuse material from this page.

Comments to: webmaster@geom.umn.edu
Last modified: Sun Jun 2 18:31:42 1996