Have put this here as it is KC related, without lenses I can not rpoperly read text messages on a mobile, small screen obveously, but when people use text talk missing vowels and using numbers I just can not make out what the message is at all
I find it creeping in to forums and e-mails and being dyslexic makes matters worse so I am really struggling to read some peoples messages.
Can we do our best with what vision we have to write things out in full?
I know we will often miss spell things and get letters back to front because we can not see the key board properly, but I for one find that sort of text far easier to read.
Gripe over
Gareth
Am I the only one?
Moderators: Anne Klepacz, John Smith, Sweet
- GarethB
- Ambassador
- Posts: 4916
- Joined: Sat 21 Aug 2004 3:31 pm
- Keratoconus: Yes, I have KC
- Vision: Graft(s) and contact lenses
- Location: Warwickshire
Am I the only one?
Gareth
- Anne B
- Champion
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2005 1:22 pm
- Keratoconus: Yes, I have KC
- Vision: Graft(s) and spectacles
- Location: Hertfordshire
Re: Am I the only one?
Victor sorry i mean Gareth
Doesn't bother me perhaps its a age thing
Doesn't bother me perhaps its a age thing
- Vic
- Regular contributor
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Sat 01 Apr 2006 8:19 pm
- Keratoconus: Yes, I have KC
- Vision: Graft(s) and spectacles
- Location: Birmingham
Re: Am I the only one?
I have to say that in a slightly different context, I have noticed exactly the same thing. It brought me to the conclusion that sometimes what we lack in sight, we make up for with pattern recognition - so I can sometimes recognise a word from a distance as much by its length / the general 'shape' of the word as a whole, as much as the individual letters. If this is changed (e.g. like your example of text speak) then it leaves me floundering. I particularly found it when I was trying to read Russian. My knowledge of English is such that I can do the combination of looking at the pattern of a word and making an educated guess as to what it is likely to be, even if I cannot actually properly define its individual letters. However I'm much more of a novice at reading the cyrillic script in Russian and *do* need to be able to clearly see each letter in a word before I can pronounce it, and it came to my attention one day that I have two pictures stuck to my wall, one with English text and the other with Russian, both the same size font and without glasses I can read the English one, but not the Russian one, from the same distance (even though I can read Russian script).
Most people are probably familiar with this phenomenon, there are various versions of a similar thing circulating the web:
- which very much supports the thought that we reply on 'patterns' and recognition of specific combinations, and the minute those are changed, e.g. shortening things in 'text speak' we suddenly find it a lot harder because it relies on us being able to see the individual letters, which requires a greater degree of visual acuity, hence why it can be a lot harder. At least, that's what I've come up with after musing over my Russian difficulties for rather a while now!
Most people are probably familiar with this phenomenon, there are various versions of a similar thing circulating the web:
fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too
i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!
- which very much supports the thought that we reply on 'patterns' and recognition of specific combinations, and the minute those are changed, e.g. shortening things in 'text speak' we suddenly find it a lot harder because it relies on us being able to see the individual letters, which requires a greater degree of visual acuity, hence why it can be a lot harder. At least, that's what I've come up with after musing over my Russian difficulties for rather a while now!
- Andrew MacLean
- Moderator
- Posts: 7703
- Joined: Thu 15 Jan 2004 8:01 pm
- Keratoconus: Yes, I have KC
- Vision: Other
- Location: Scotland
Re: Am I the only one?
Vic
We read not just individual word "patterns" but also whole phrases. If we begin with commonly used phrases like "Mother knows best". Very few people would ever read this as "Mother ... knows ... best"; most people , including quite young children just recognize the phrase and move on. The more adept readers can recotnize whole sentences, paragraphs and sometimes even pages of text.
Those who are used to reading technical journals will skim across great strings of letters that would stop the rest of us cold in our tracks.
I have always found that sans serif fonts slower to read than fonts like Palatino or Times. Oddly I find Optima reads lile a font with serifs left on, although it is tecnhically without serifs.
Gareth, like you I find instant message abbreviations a bit of a challenge.
Andrew
We read not just individual word "patterns" but also whole phrases. If we begin with commonly used phrases like "Mother knows best". Very few people would ever read this as "Mother ... knows ... best"; most people , including quite young children just recognize the phrase and move on. The more adept readers can recotnize whole sentences, paragraphs and sometimes even pages of text.
Those who are used to reading technical journals will skim across great strings of letters that would stop the rest of us cold in our tracks.
I have always found that sans serif fonts slower to read than fonts like Palatino or Times. Oddly I find Optima reads lile a font with serifs left on, although it is tecnhically without serifs.
Gareth, like you I find instant message abbreviations a bit of a challenge.
Andrew
Andrew MacLean
- GarethB
- Ambassador
- Posts: 4916
- Joined: Sat 21 Aug 2004 3:31 pm
- Keratoconus: Yes, I have KC
- Vision: Graft(s) and contact lenses
- Location: Warwickshire
Re: Am I the only one?
I find it a challenge from a moderation point of view just to make sure bad language is not being used.
It is quite common to use symbols and numbers to get round forum filters which when read in a certain way are rude/offensive.
Being dyslexic and dodgy eyes makes this doubley challenging.
It is quite common to use symbols and numbers to get round forum filters which when read in a certain way are rude/offensive.
Being dyslexic and dodgy eyes makes this doubley challenging.
Gareth
- Andrew MacLean
- Moderator
- Posts: 7703
- Joined: Thu 15 Jan 2004 8:01 pm
- Keratoconus: Yes, I have KC
- Vision: Other
- Location: Scotland
Re: Am I the only one?
To be honest, I am finding it a bit hard to know what exactly counts as inappropriate language in the modern world. I know what I think is inappropriate, but was surprised to hear that the winning name for the Blue Peter Cat had been set aside because it had "rude connotations".
I didn't know that "c**kie" was a rude word (sorry if the filter blots out the "oo").
The filter here does seem to my old fashioned eyes to censor some quite tame vocabulary and to allow some other words that seem a bit more racey.
Also: in different parts of the English speaking world there are words that are commonly used that would be considered quite rude in other parts. The American name for a "belt bag" always makes me feel a bit uncomfortable, and the Australian use to the noun that denotes the underground parts of a plant comes always as a surprise.
Somebody once posted that it would be hard to ban smoking in one of Her Majesty's Submarines because it would be hard for some of Her Majesty's Submariners to cope for all that time submerged without a ...[cigarette]... to keep them calm. The word he used is commonly used in the UK to mean cigarette but in the United States it is commonly used in an altogether different way.
All that said, you make good points, Gareth.
Andrew
I didn't know that "c**kie" was a rude word (sorry if the filter blots out the "oo").
The filter here does seem to my old fashioned eyes to censor some quite tame vocabulary and to allow some other words that seem a bit more racey.
Also: in different parts of the English speaking world there are words that are commonly used that would be considered quite rude in other parts. The American name for a "belt bag" always makes me feel a bit uncomfortable, and the Australian use to the noun that denotes the underground parts of a plant comes always as a surprise.
Somebody once posted that it would be hard to ban smoking in one of Her Majesty's Submarines because it would be hard for some of Her Majesty's Submariners to cope for all that time submerged without a ...[cigarette]... to keep them calm. The word he used is commonly used in the UK to mean cigarette but in the United States it is commonly used in an altogether different way.
All that said, you make good points, Gareth.
Andrew
Andrew MacLean
- Karl R
- Chatterbox
- Posts: 289
- Joined: Sat 05 Nov 2005 9:43 am
- Keratoconus: Yes, I have KC
- Vision: I have Intacs implanted
- Location: Staffordshire
Re: Am I the only one?
A lot of it is to do with word recognition, the brain will be able to correctly form words even when the individual characters are out of order so long as the first and last letter are in their correct place.
eg Tihs is an emplaxe phrsae sohwnig waht I am tlkanig auobt
however with text speak the brain needs to work out what letters should be in the words and also to insert the correct word/phrase in the absence of any form of correct spelling
eg. Txtng is 4 u 2 c wot im on about. l8r
eg Tihs is an emplaxe phrsae sohwnig waht I am tlkanig auobt
however with text speak the brain needs to work out what letters should be in the words and also to insert the correct word/phrase in the absence of any form of correct spelling
eg. Txtng is 4 u 2 c wot im on about. l8r
There is only one difference between a madman and me. The madman thinks he is sane. I know I am mad. (Salvador Dali 1904-1989)
Re: Am I the only one?
Gareth, I manage to use my Mac 'puter easily, set to blow up the text size with the touch of a button and contrast set as I need it.....but my cell phone, my calculator and Fax machine at work are another story.....all of them are small or low contrast and I have to find extra light and a magnifier to deal with them. Damn. Piper
- donna
- Forum Stalwart
- Posts: 360
- Joined: Sat 16 Dec 2006 5:40 pm
- Keratoconus: Yes, I have KC
- Vision: Contact lenses
- Location: Cumbria
Re: Am I the only one?
You can get a chip put into your mobile that gives you a vocal reading of any texts/numbers/ time etc
No idea how much or where from, maybe some searching around on the internet would find it?
Its very good
No idea how much or where from, maybe some searching around on the internet would find it?
Its very good
Return to “General Discussion Forum”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 89 guests