On Friday, May 16, 2014 5:51:21 AM UTC+5:30, Ben Finney wrote:
> Rather, I've claimed that the conventional lime length limit is *based
> in* the real cognitive limits of human reading comprehension -- and that
> technologies have been designed with corresponding limitations.
> Nowhere have I claimed 79 or 80 are somehow fundamental or encoded in
> human cognition, and I have seen no-one else claim that. Please try to
> work within your own cognitive limits and read what people write for
You said this:
> The 80 character line limit is *not* driven by a limitation of computer
> technology; it is driven by a limitation of human cognition. For that
> reason, it remains relevant until human cognition in the general reading
> population improves.
And you answered:
> Until then may we relegate '79' to quaint historical curiosities...??
> Not until the general capacity of human cognition advances to make
> longer lines easier to read.