On 2012-11-23, Derek Martin <inva...@pizzashack.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 06:17:27PM +0000, Tony's unattended mail wrote: >> > At this time, the generally accepted assumption is to wrap at around >> > 72--76 characters >>=20 >> Right.. one million smokers can't be wrong. > > It's been pointed out that this number comes from scientific studies > regarding the ergonomics of reading.
Sure, but not in what I quoted and responded to for which you're now responding. You bring a new argument. BTW, sending a variable width format allows for 72 character rendering, so these dated ergonomics studies are not at odds with an unwrapped source text anyway. Moreover, you would be hard-pressed to find a study that concludes the same when the display device is a smartphone. Blindly accepting studies without consideration to their time period and other artifacts might have you flipping your smartphone sideways to attempt to achieve 72 characters in a reasonable font, but I think you'll be disappointed with the results. > So the one million smokers argument is a red herring. Nonsense. Calling out a fallacy (bandwagon in this case) is not a red herring any more than the original comment is a red herring. A general majority may accept a particular ideology, that does not mean it carries merit. You'll have to find another way to claim merit to the idea. >
