"FACT!"

[Cozzer]

Yes, isn't it annoying?!
People throwing this extra word at the end of any sentence. It's as irritating as "like" being every third word...
As though adding "fact" makes whatever they've just uttered any more credible or genuine.
I digress...
I had a problem with my insolent Labrador on his night time walk yesterday. He was obviously "desperate", but at each likely point along the way, he'd crouch/waggle/adjust/pause/adjust/waggle/pause longer, before deciding that "Nope! Not here! It's wrong!" and walking on again.
Amusing to start with, but after five or six of these "false alarms" - especially as it had started raining - the humour of the situation wore a tad thin.
Anyway, this morning I looked up the problem on one of the doggie sites, only to read that "dogs will prefer to point due north when and where possible...FACT!" when engaged in this action.
Really? Really?!
You mean someone has bothered to study this subject so closely that they've been able to prove it's the case?!

Nah.
Surely not.....


Mind you, I recall many years ago that some survey-or-other maintained that 75% of Americans polled didn't believe their parents had engaged in sex, so....

 

[John Brown]

I read that somewhere a few years back. Our dog's compass was obviously broken, as he'd rubbish facing any old way.

 

[niemeyjt]

Do dogs in the Southern Hemisphere point south? Do any Australian members know the facts?

 

[woodhutt]

Do dogs in the Southern Hemisphere point south? Do any Australian members know the facts?

I shall hasten out tomorrow, observe carefully and, if I'm not arrested as some sort of pervert, I'll report back.

 

[ajs]

That particular example strikes me as complete nonsense but the FACT! assertion or something similar can be useful to emphasise a position is based on actual evidence as opposed to opinion or supposition.

One unrelated example of that which comes to mind is a discussion I've had a few times in the past: the merits or serif vs sans serif typefaces. Design-led types are invariably drawn drawn to the more minimal sans serif typefaces, arguing they are clearer and easier to read, although in reality the preference is one based purely on aesthetics.

How do you actually measure how easy a typeface is to read? Surely one of the best metrics would be reading speed. Studies have been done on this repeatedly. Admittedly the ones I have seen are older and based on printed matter rather than on screen (I did an informal crash course in typography at Uni) but they invariably found serif fonts are significantly faster to read (30-40%) than sans serif fonts. That's a fact. You can dispute it if you want but the rebuttal has to be on the same basis. A response based on subjection impressions or opinions doesn't cut it.

Although I just did a quick Google which finds the odd site claiming exactly the opposite, yes from aethetically led web desgners, so perhaps I'll have to try and dig out those sources from 20 odd years ago.

 

[Pabs]

in my work I have to explain 'facts' to people quite regularly and often it will challenge their idea of what a 'fact' is.

part of the challenge is explaining what might be a meta-analysis / systematic review with all sorts of concepts e.g. relative risk / odds ratio etc - and presenting it in an understandable way under time pressure.

If sometimes feels like you're competing with all the 'facts' out there. (old wives tales are especially annoying facts)

Trouble is if you do a schmoogle seach for anything you want to ratify you'll be met with the exact answer you want to see. For instance I could write '60% of people don't know what a percent is' but the mistake here would be to label this a 'fact' just because I read it on some website.

e.g Confirmation Bias.

Misinformation abounds, daily I come across lies, more lies and lying statistics; someplace in the murk is the truth. Given the rise of social media and instant broadcast 'facts' are plentiful yet not often f-actual facts.

Bias can be fun however

 

[Cozzer]

That particular example strikes me as complete nonsense but the FACT! assertion or something similar can be useful to emphasise a position is based on actual evidence as opposed to opinion or supposition.

One unrelated example of that which comes to mind is a discussion I've had a few times in the past: the merits or serif vs sans serif typefaces. Design-led types are invariably drawn drawn to the more minimal sans serif typefaces, arguing they are clearer and easier to read, although in reality the preference is one based purely on aesthetics.

How do you actually measure how easy a typeface is to read? Surely one of the best metrics would be reading speed. Studies have been done on this repeatedly. Admittedly the ones I have seen are older and based on printed matter rather than on screen (I did an informal crash course in typography at Uni) but they invariably found serif fonts are significantly faster to read (30-40%) than sans serif fonts. That's a fact. You can dispute it if you want but the rebuttal has to be on the same basis. A response based on subjection impressions or opinions doesn't cut it.

Although I just did a quick Google which finds the odd site claiming exactly the opposite, yes from aethetically led web desgners, so perhaps I'll have to try and dig out those sources from 20 odd years ago.

I liked Woody Allen's comments about the advantages of 'speed reading', after finishing 'War and Peace' in a little more than 2 hours.









"It's about Russia".

 

[niemeyjt]

One unrelated example of that which comes to mind is a discussion I've had a few times in the past: the merits or serif vs sans serif typefaces. Design-led types are invariably drawn drawn to the more minimal sans serif typefaces, arguing they are clearer and easier to read, although in reality the preference is one based purely on aesthetics.

How do you actually measure how easy a typeface is to read? Surely one of the best metrics would be reading speed. Studies have been done on this repeatedly. Admittedly the ones I have seen are older and based on printed matter rather than on screen (I did an informal crash course in typography at Uni) but they invariably found serif fonts are significantly faster to read (30-40%) than sans serif fonts. That's a fact.

That takes me back to my train-the-trainer technical writing training - in the 80s, before we all read everything off an electronic screen.

Then, for reading off paper printouts, a serif font was indeed deemed best, and Century Schoolbook the best of the best, followed by Times (New) Roman. 11pt on 12pt was the best size - or 10pt otherwise. Thick spaced. Left justified. One of the things I dislike nowadays are double justified printouts because it looks prettier - style over substance unless you are working in columns.

Nowadays, Arial / Helvetica on electronic screens may be easier to read than Times - I have not seen research either way.

 

[Inspector]

You guys are all facting bored to make a thread of this. Fact!!!

Pete

 

[aet1]

That particular example strikes me as complete nonsense but the FACT! assertion or something similar can be useful to emphasise a position is based on actual evidence as opposed to opinion or supposition.

One unrelated example of that which comes to mind is a discussion I've had a few times in the past: the merits or serif vs sans serif typefaces. Design-led types are invariably drawn drawn to the more minimal sans serif typefaces, arguing they are clearer and easier to read, although in reality the preference is one based purely on aesthetics.

How do you actually measure how easy a typeface is to read? Surely one of the best metrics would be reading speed. Studies have been done on this repeatedly. Admittedly the ones I have seen are older and based on printed matter rather than on screen (I did an informal crash course in typography at Uni) but they invariably found serif fonts are significantly faster to read (30-40%) than sans serif fonts. That's a fact. You can dispute it if you want but the rebuttal has to be on the same basis. A response based on subjection impressions or opinions doesn't cut it.

Although I just did a quick Google which finds the odd site claiming exactly the opposite, yes from aethetically led web desgners, so perhaps I'll have to try and dig out those sources from 20 odd years ago.

I have always thought the serif face is regarded as easier to read, I suppose I was told this fact many years ago.
I do wonder if, assuming it to be true, it is because the top half of characters convey the most information about the letter in most cases, and serif fonts have more detail in their face which may add to this recognition.
Perhaps sans serif fonts lack as much information in the upper half making it necessary to observe the lower half too, so slowing reading speed.

 

[aet1]

Back to dogs - mine seem to chose the longest grass or most difficult place to clear up after them - FACT.

 

[Inspector]

My dogs are more like weather vanes. Butt into the wind.

Pete

 

[Adam W.]

Or the most likely place for human traffic.

 

[Ozi]

My dogs are more like weather vanes. Butt into the wind.

Pete

It's worse when it's wind out of the butt!

 

[Inspector]

It's worse when it's wind out of the butt!

7 pound dogs. More of a puff than a wind.

Pete

 

[Cozzer]

7 pound dogs. More of a puff than a wind.

Pete

Mine's 55kg. Definitely not a puff of wind.



I've just remembered one of the amusing ones...
"You don't need a parachute to sky dive. FACT!"






(But you do if you want to do it twice...)

 

[Terry - Somerset]

they invariably found serif fonts are significantly faster to read (30-40%) than sans serif fonts. That's a fact.

I wouldn't doubt that it is a fact. But is understanding and comprehension inversely proportional to speed - slower may be better!

Many faster activities carry greater risks - driving = more accidents, eating = indigestion, measure thrice, cut once = less waste etc.

 

[woodhutt]

True to my word, I went out today and made the following observations of Southern Hemisphere dogs at the cost of a pair of ripped trousers and a rather painful tetanus booster.
It would appear that wind direction is more of a factor than magnetic North/South or the Earth's rotation. Unlike Canada, where one of our contributors noted his dog kept his back to the wind, dogs in the Wellington Region invariably face into the wind and with their mouths slightly open. As Wellington is notoriously windy, there may be some aerodynamic forces at play here but I am not qualified to comment.
Just as interesting was the choice of location. Rough grassy areas, where the results are difficult to see, were eschewed in favour of freshly mown lawns or carefully tended flower beds. This may have something to do with pride of display.
Next came driveways and pavements with, for those dogs that have a propensity for chasing moving vehicles, cycle paths. These allow the dog to indulge both its passions without the need for a change of location.
Further down the list, but each with its aficionados, came children's play areas and public beaches.
Conclusion:
It isn't clear from the OP if the original observation was the result of an academic study but, if it was, I would recommend the researcher be given a quick kick in the slats for wasting public money. And that is a FACT.
Pete

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Mine's 55kg. Definitely not a puff of wind.

My biggest was 84kg.

 

[JimJay]

Yes, isn't it annoying?!
People throwing this extra word at the end of any sentence. It's as irritating as "like" being every third word...
As though adding "fact" makes whatever they've just uttered any more credible or genuine.
I digress...
I had a problem with my insolent Labrador on his night time walk yesterday. He was obviously "desperate", but at each likely point along the way, he'd crouch/waggle/adjust/pause/adjust/waggle/pause longer, before deciding that "Nope! Not here! It's wrong!" and walking on again.
Amusing to start with, but after five or six of these "false alarms" - especially as it had started raining - the humour of the situation wore a tad thin.
Anyway, this morning I looked up the problem on one of the doggie sites, only to read that "dogs will prefer to point due north when and where possible...FACT!" when engaged in this action.
Really? Really?!
You mean someone has bothered to study this subject so closely that they've been able to prove it's the case?!

Nah.
Surely not.....


Mind you, I recall many years ago that some survey-or-other maintained that 75% of Americans polled didn't believe their parents had engaged in sex, so....

I think that if you look at the study more closely you'll find that it said "should have" rather than "had"....