Re: 7 +/- 2 (was: Omitting Table and Figure Numbers?)

Subject: Re: 7 +/- 2 (was: Omitting Table and Figure Numbers?)
From: Kevin Cheek <cheek1 -at- sbcglobal -dot- net>
To: Andrea Brundt <andrea_w_brundt -at- hotmail -dot- com>, TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 13:23:40 -0700 (PDT)


--- Andrea Brundt <andrea_w_brundt -at- hotmail -dot- com> wrote:
> <...>
> I think you end up using the "rule of 7" in an arbitrary
> way that doesn't add value to your doc. I'm all for
> understanding how the brain works and using that knowledge
> to make better documents, but I'm puzzled -- 7 what?,
> letters words, clauses, steps, concepts, topics, chapters,
> books...?

I agree that too much information, too densely packed can cause the
reader to miss things.

My personal experience leads me to believe that the real number is
more like 2 +/- 7 items, and like all processes involving mental
function, the number is highly caffiene-dependent.

Off to refill my mug,

Kevin Cheek
cheek1 -at- sbcglobal -dot- net





References:
Re: 7 +/- 2 (was: Omitting Table and Figure Numbers?): From: Andrea Brundt

Previous by Author: Re: What's on your TC bookshelf?
Next by Author: RE: What's on your TC bookshelf?
Previous by Thread: Re: 7 +/- 2 (was: Omitting Table and Figure Numbers?)
Next by Thread: RE: 7 +/- 2 (was: Omitting Table and Figure Numbers?)


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads