January 10, 2013 at 21:22Method for constructing readable texts
Some clarifications:
In May 2012, I was visited by the idea of systematizing the process of writing technical texts (mainly reports and articles). Based on some assumptions from the field of ergonomics, I introduced simple assumptions and made an attempt "on the fly" to compose a text that would describe itself as a method of building texts. I give the result of such an attempt.
Assumptions:
- Suppose there is a certain “hypervolume of consciousness” that can simultaneously operate with several units of information, which we conventionally call “lexemes”. Let us designate this phenomenon as “operative memory of the brain”.
- Suppose the number of tokens that can be simultaneously placed in the RAM of the brain cannot exceed 5..7 units.
- Let's say the order of receipt of tokens in the RAM does not matter for consciousness. (By analogy with the phenomenon: “According to the rzelulattas, the ilseovadny odongo of an unly unquestiset has no interest ... etc.”)
- Suppose the presence of “extra” tokens in RAM does not constitute a problem from the point of view of their processing by consciousness.
- Suppose there is no significant forgetting and transformation of tokens.
Then you can create a method for constructing texts such that the text obtained as a result of its application will be well structured, devoid of uncontrolled redundancy, have no unrelated elements, and can also be easily represented in the form of a graph. In other words, this text will be readable, “readable” and “readable”.
Chapter 1
1. Within each paragraph, the logic of the material does not matter, because each paragraph is a unit that can be guaranteed to hold the memory of the brain. The paragraph is a subsystem within the framework of a supersystem - a chapter of the lower level.
2. Each paragraph should be worded in such a way that it is obvious what links it has to which paragraphs. If in each paragraph there is a certain “main thought” (“core”), these “main thoughts” can, in turn, form a cell “unit” of information that can be guaranteed to hold RAM.
Fig. 1 Paragraph of cores.
3. Thus, the size of the chapter is limited: the chapter should consist of so many paragraphs that one paragraph can be composed of their cores. The question remains open - is it possible to do the same with the chapters? Is it possible to single out a core within each chapter and limit the number of chapters to the possibility of building a paragraph from the core of the chapters?
4. The paragraphs within the text and chapter should be followed in such a way that the presentation logic is unidirectional. This rule, of course, is advisory in nature. It is probably worth referring it not to the paragraph as a whole, but to the core of the paragraphs. Paragraph kernels should follow the unidirectional rule. Violation of this rule leads to links to kernels that do not exist for the reader, which contradicts the “paragraph from the kernels” principle.
5. One of the problems associated with the compilation of texts is the limited capacity of the human brain. One way or another, there is a limit to the assimilation of information. How quickly this border sets in depends on two factors. The first is the transparency of the text, the second is its clarity. Moreover, transparency depends on the author of the text, and clarity depends on the reader.
6. The phenomenon that violates the transparency of the text, among other things, are edits. Edits, both within the paragraph and within the chapters of all levels. Edits cause the mixing and inconsistency of paragraphs, lead to a violation of the rule of one-directional sequence of paragraph cores. An important question regarding the compilation of texts is the question - how to edit the text so that the negative effect from them is negligible?
7. Perhaps, forming chapters from paragraphs, one should adhere to the mnemonic rule 5..7. This rule has been derived empirically (for the US Navy) and consists in the fact that the memory of the brain can simultaneously operate with a number of objects approximately equal to 5..7. Following this principle should increase the transparency of the text.
8. This chapter has 8 paragraphs (including this one), an attempt will now be made to highlight the core paragraphs and make them a diagram of links and a paragraph of text.
Chapter 2
9.So, summarizing paragraphs 1..7 in accordance with the diagram of connections (Fig. 2), you can make a paragraph with the following content: “Limitation of the brain’s capabilities leads to the need to build texts in such a way that they are most convenient for perception. To achieve readability, the logic of the text should be unidirectional, the amount of information in each paragraph and in each chapter should not be too large . Moreover, this information should be as transparent as possible to achieve, as a result, maximum clarity on the part of the reader. ”
Fig. 2 Diagram of paragraph links 1..7. Direct links in paragraph 9 are indicated by a normal line, indirect links by a dashed line.
10. As you can see, paragraph 9 refers directly to paragraphs 1, 4, 5, indirectly to 2, 3, 7, and does not refer to 6. It means, on the one hand, that the author considers 6 to be a secondary paragraph and on the other hand , denotes insufficient experience of the author in the preparation of capacious and at the same time not too bulky paragraphs.
11. Following the traditions of the presentation of the texts, this text (consisting of one chapter) should be divided into introduction, main part and conclusion. This can only be achieved with the help of corrections: move paragraph 9 to the first place or, on the basis of it, draw up a new paragraph that conveys similar information in a more general and concise form. One thing is obvious: no more than 7 paragraphs should be left within a chapter, and all other paragraphs should be taken out as a separate chapter.
12. Also, the title of the text as a whole should be formulated. The title should be the “core nuclei of the chapters”. One of the ways to formulate the name can be to highlight the core of the summary paragraph 9 and to introduce information introducing the title into the introduction. Variants of names: “Application of the principle of transparency to the formation of texts” or “The method of constructing texts in accordance with the principle of transparency”, or “The method of constructing texts that are easy to read”. The last name is most relevant, because does not violate the principles of unidirectional text logic.
13. Next, a diagram of links between paragraphs 1..12 will be compiled, a paragraph made up of kernels 10..12 will be formulated, an introduction and conclusion of the text will be compiled. References will not be given, because it has only one name (source of rule 5..7). This source is the 1971 Human Engineering Guide to Equipment Design Ergonomics Guide.
Fig. 3 Diagram of paragraph links 1..12.
14. Paragraph of cores 10, 11, 12: The logic of links between paragraphs should be monitored. The rule of unidirectional logic of the sequence of nuclei should be respected in a separate text at all its levels. Convenient text should have a simple transparent name.
15. In order to draw up an introduction and conclusion, within the framework of the proposed method, based on the hierarchy of the structure of the text, it is not necessary to compile the summary paragraphs (such as 9 and 14) to re-study the entire text from beginning to end. It is enough to single out the kernels 9 and 14 and make up from them two closely related overview paragraphs. These two paragraphs, following the tradition of composing texts, should state the same thing, but with some differences. Namely: the introduction should be focused on previous studies on the topic under discussion, and the conclusion should be focused on future ones.
16. Introduction:
In the process of creating texts, regardless of their size, a problem arises related to their growth and, as a result, a violation of internal logic and ease of assimilation by the reader. To prevent such phenomena, it is necessary to formulate a method that is easy to use and allows you to control the logic of the text so that the control of this logic does not depend on the volume of the text being composed. An analysis of existing methods of this kind revealed the problem of completely ignoring the adaptability of the method to the growth of the text. The author made an attempt to build a convenient method for the formation of texts, since a text that is easy to read can be composed solely as a result of the action of a convenient method for use.
17. Conclusion:
As a result of work on the creation of a method for composing texts, an algorithm was constructed aimed at maintaining the stability of control over the logic of texts regardless of the growth of their volume. The method, in its current edition, allows you to highlight the hierarchy of paragraphs in the text, highlight summaries among the paragraphs, provides an approach to increasing the transparency of the text, taking into account the psychology of the perception of texts. This text is built in the process of forming the method. Due to such recursiveness, it cannot serve as a standard for the application of the method. However, recursiveness also has positive qualities - it shows the process of forming the method "as is" - reveals the chronology of the construction of paragraphs, the evolution of the method in the process of its creation, etc. Probably, a valuable contribution to the development of the method can be made from the standpoint of hermeneutics.
Comments:
The introduction turned out to be at the end (paragraph 16), this is due to the chronology of writing the text and does not carry a fundamental burden. Practice has shown that the construction of texts that strictly correspond to the method takes an unreasonably long time, however, having the method in mind, you can at least not make any confusion where possible. Application of the method to bulky reports of the “one copy - one pack of paper” class showed its low sensitivity to the growth of texts. “The problem of corrections” is removed by a timely transition to new versions of the text.
In conclusion, I would like to express my gratitude to Ana H. for beer, pistachios, and valuable editing.
In May 2012, I was visited by the idea of systematizing the process of writing technical texts (mainly reports and articles). Based on some assumptions from the field of ergonomics, I introduced simple assumptions and made an attempt "on the fly" to compose a text that would describe itself as a method of building texts. I give the result of such an attempt.
Assumptions:
- Suppose there is a certain “hypervolume of consciousness” that can simultaneously operate with several units of information, which we conventionally call “lexemes”. Let us designate this phenomenon as “operative memory of the brain”.
- Suppose the number of tokens that can be simultaneously placed in the RAM of the brain cannot exceed 5..7 units.
- Let's say the order of receipt of tokens in the RAM does not matter for consciousness. (By analogy with the phenomenon: “According to the rzelulattas, the ilseovadny odongo of an unly unquestiset has no interest ... etc.”)
- Suppose the presence of “extra” tokens in RAM does not constitute a problem from the point of view of their processing by consciousness.
- Suppose there is no significant forgetting and transformation of tokens.
Then you can create a method for constructing texts such that the text obtained as a result of its application will be well structured, devoid of uncontrolled redundancy, have no unrelated elements, and can also be easily represented in the form of a graph. In other words, this text will be readable, “readable” and “readable”.
Chapter 1
1. Within each paragraph, the logic of the material does not matter, because each paragraph is a unit that can be guaranteed to hold the memory of the brain. The paragraph is a subsystem within the framework of a supersystem - a chapter of the lower level.
2. Each paragraph should be worded in such a way that it is obvious what links it has to which paragraphs. If in each paragraph there is a certain “main thought” (“core”), these “main thoughts” can, in turn, form a cell “unit” of information that can be guaranteed to hold RAM.
Fig. 1 Paragraph of cores.
3. Thus, the size of the chapter is limited: the chapter should consist of so many paragraphs that one paragraph can be composed of their cores. The question remains open - is it possible to do the same with the chapters? Is it possible to single out a core within each chapter and limit the number of chapters to the possibility of building a paragraph from the core of the chapters?
4. The paragraphs within the text and chapter should be followed in such a way that the presentation logic is unidirectional. This rule, of course, is advisory in nature. It is probably worth referring it not to the paragraph as a whole, but to the core of the paragraphs. Paragraph kernels should follow the unidirectional rule. Violation of this rule leads to links to kernels that do not exist for the reader, which contradicts the “paragraph from the kernels” principle.
5. One of the problems associated with the compilation of texts is the limited capacity of the human brain. One way or another, there is a limit to the assimilation of information. How quickly this border sets in depends on two factors. The first is the transparency of the text, the second is its clarity. Moreover, transparency depends on the author of the text, and clarity depends on the reader.
6. The phenomenon that violates the transparency of the text, among other things, are edits. Edits, both within the paragraph and within the chapters of all levels. Edits cause the mixing and inconsistency of paragraphs, lead to a violation of the rule of one-directional sequence of paragraph cores. An important question regarding the compilation of texts is the question - how to edit the text so that the negative effect from them is negligible?
7. Perhaps, forming chapters from paragraphs, one should adhere to the mnemonic rule 5..7. This rule has been derived empirically (for the US Navy) and consists in the fact that the memory of the brain can simultaneously operate with a number of objects approximately equal to 5..7. Following this principle should increase the transparency of the text.
8. This chapter has 8 paragraphs (including this one), an attempt will now be made to highlight the core paragraphs and make them a diagram of links and a paragraph of text.
Chapter 2
9.So, summarizing paragraphs 1..7 in accordance with the diagram of connections (Fig. 2), you can make a paragraph with the following content: “Limitation of the brain’s capabilities leads to the need to build texts in such a way that they are most convenient for perception. To achieve readability, the logic of the text should be unidirectional, the amount of information in each paragraph and in each chapter should not be too large . Moreover, this information should be as transparent as possible to achieve, as a result, maximum clarity on the part of the reader. ”
Fig. 2 Diagram of paragraph links 1..7. Direct links in paragraph 9 are indicated by a normal line, indirect links by a dashed line.
10. As you can see, paragraph 9 refers directly to paragraphs 1, 4, 5, indirectly to 2, 3, 7, and does not refer to 6. It means, on the one hand, that the author considers 6 to be a secondary paragraph and on the other hand , denotes insufficient experience of the author in the preparation of capacious and at the same time not too bulky paragraphs.
11. Following the traditions of the presentation of the texts, this text (consisting of one chapter) should be divided into introduction, main part and conclusion. This can only be achieved with the help of corrections: move paragraph 9 to the first place or, on the basis of it, draw up a new paragraph that conveys similar information in a more general and concise form. One thing is obvious: no more than 7 paragraphs should be left within a chapter, and all other paragraphs should be taken out as a separate chapter.
12. Also, the title of the text as a whole should be formulated. The title should be the “core nuclei of the chapters”. One of the ways to formulate the name can be to highlight the core of the summary paragraph 9 and to introduce information introducing the title into the introduction. Variants of names: “Application of the principle of transparency to the formation of texts” or “The method of constructing texts in accordance with the principle of transparency”, or “The method of constructing texts that are easy to read”. The last name is most relevant, because does not violate the principles of unidirectional text logic.
13. Next, a diagram of links between paragraphs 1..12 will be compiled, a paragraph made up of kernels 10..12 will be formulated, an introduction and conclusion of the text will be compiled. References will not be given, because it has only one name (source of rule 5..7). This source is the 1971 Human Engineering Guide to Equipment Design Ergonomics Guide.
Fig. 3 Diagram of paragraph links 1..12.
14. Paragraph of cores 10, 11, 12: The logic of links between paragraphs should be monitored. The rule of unidirectional logic of the sequence of nuclei should be respected in a separate text at all its levels. Convenient text should have a simple transparent name.
15. In order to draw up an introduction and conclusion, within the framework of the proposed method, based on the hierarchy of the structure of the text, it is not necessary to compile the summary paragraphs (such as 9 and 14) to re-study the entire text from beginning to end. It is enough to single out the kernels 9 and 14 and make up from them two closely related overview paragraphs. These two paragraphs, following the tradition of composing texts, should state the same thing, but with some differences. Namely: the introduction should be focused on previous studies on the topic under discussion, and the conclusion should be focused on future ones.
16. Introduction:
In the process of creating texts, regardless of their size, a problem arises related to their growth and, as a result, a violation of internal logic and ease of assimilation by the reader. To prevent such phenomena, it is necessary to formulate a method that is easy to use and allows you to control the logic of the text so that the control of this logic does not depend on the volume of the text being composed. An analysis of existing methods of this kind revealed the problem of completely ignoring the adaptability of the method to the growth of the text. The author made an attempt to build a convenient method for the formation of texts, since a text that is easy to read can be composed solely as a result of the action of a convenient method for use.
17. Conclusion:
As a result of work on the creation of a method for composing texts, an algorithm was constructed aimed at maintaining the stability of control over the logic of texts regardless of the growth of their volume. The method, in its current edition, allows you to highlight the hierarchy of paragraphs in the text, highlight summaries among the paragraphs, provides an approach to increasing the transparency of the text, taking into account the psychology of the perception of texts. This text is built in the process of forming the method. Due to such recursiveness, it cannot serve as a standard for the application of the method. However, recursiveness also has positive qualities - it shows the process of forming the method "as is" - reveals the chronology of the construction of paragraphs, the evolution of the method in the process of its creation, etc. Probably, a valuable contribution to the development of the method can be made from the standpoint of hermeneutics.
Comments:
The introduction turned out to be at the end (paragraph 16), this is due to the chronology of writing the text and does not carry a fundamental burden. Practice has shown that the construction of texts that strictly correspond to the method takes an unreasonably long time, however, having the method in mind, you can at least not make any confusion where possible. Application of the method to bulky reports of the “one copy - one pack of paper” class showed its low sensitivity to the growth of texts. “The problem of corrections” is removed by a timely transition to new versions of the text.
In conclusion, I would like to express my gratitude to Ana H. for beer, pistachios, and valuable editing.