Notes about the presentation format

The appearance of the blue paper

Showing information on a large screen in an auditorium, especially a darkened one, requires different appearance than information shown on a small computer screen, which is often in a highly lit environment.

For example, typical 12pt that is easy to read on a PC screen is very hard to read on a large auditorium screen. So for the presentation I had to bold the font to make it visible.

To avoid a large white surface on the screen which would cause glare, I chose a blue background to darken the background and make it easier on the eye.

That was for the presentation in an auditorium. When I hastily converted the material for the Web I did not bother to make any changes, except to remove the huge background image which was fine on a local PC, but would be too large for the Web. Admittedly this rush job was a huge mistake.

I then posted the URL of the paper to ULIST, a usability discussion list.

To my surprise their was a bit of an outcry, not about the content of the ideas, but about the appearance of the presentation, which I would have accepted, as I did not particularly liked it either for the Web. I have no problems with criticism, but since most of the comments were based on personal and biased preferances, I was annoyed that there was no scientific discussion about the content. Not even the remarks about presentation style were made on the basis of scientific evidence, but it seemed to me that commentators were merely airing their personal preferences, which made me take on the role of cat among the pigeons. If anyone could post scientific reasons why the appearance did not work, I would have gladly accepted it without much ado and left the matter there.

One commentator thought that perhaps I intended the entire excercise as a joke. There is a hint of truth here, as after the first responses I then deliberately became an instigator. So the intention was not to be deliberately funny, but to be stubbornly making a point (which may seem funny to some).

Here are some final notes on the exercise.

• Designers often have subjective opinions about design that they cannot rationalize. Having been involved in the evaluation of student work for quite some time, I find it morally wrong to fail a student or give poor marks just because the evaluator does not like the style. It seems to me some usability experts have not reached that point as their personal preferances seem to have dominated the discussion.
• The blue color scheme of the original web document is a subliminal attack on such subjective opinions, which are usually held strongly and defended with equal zest. That is part of the story.
• The other part is that a blue backdrop actually does work very well in an auditorium with large screen projection. The problem is then to get enough contrast with the text foreground. In this case I used light blue for the text on a dark blue background. I used the same style sheet when I originally posted the document on the Web as I did for the data projector, except I turned off the background image (with soft blue spotlights) which would have been too heavy for the Web.
• Technically, with the markup I stick closely to formal recommendations and do not follow typical Web hacking. This is done deliberately to prove a point: designers will ignore recommendations or standards and hack systems according to their own tastes and preferances as standards do not allow them enough freedom.
  Unfortunately browser developers also have their own agendas. So although my markup is technically correct, a browser such as MS Internet Explorer makes a mess of bullets.
• I have yet to come accross any scholarly work about color schemes that can stand serious scrutiny. I thus cannot conclude that there is any objective human psychological response to colors (despite popular claims such as "warm" or "cold" colors). Color perception is psychologically subjective.
  F Birren provides some psychological interpretations of color, but I do not find any cognitive, physiological or physical evidence from a constructivist point of view for the statements made in these publications:
  • Color and Human Response, 1978 New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold
  • Color Psychology and Color Therapy, 1978 Secaucus, NJ: Citadel Press
• Color interpretation is basically physical and physiological -- blue colors have shorter wavelengths than red, so I do accept that there may be some psychological effect on users. However, following action theory, I do not accept the pacifist view of homo sapiens. We are not powerless against stimuli that are forced upon us. So despite a physical/physiological basis for color, the meaning of color is always cultural and subjective -- we can override the physical. At some points in history certain color combinations are regarded as bad taste. And to a later generation those same colors are the really in colors. This situation is found in almost any open culture. In more closed cultures religious, mythical and such values may be attached to colors and force "inherent" cultural meanings onto them.
• Finally, I am still waiting for a rational criticism of the blue paper's appearance. I have seen some energetic dislikes, but these remain "dislikes" of personal taste.

The appearance of the present paper

• My personal taste is for pastel color schemes. So after my initial "experiment" I changed the style sheet into one I use most often (my default style sheet).
• And of course there may be many who dislike this style sheet. But that is the point of selectable style sheets: to allow the user to pick a style sheet of her/his personal taste-- which browsers presently do not implement efficiently.
• The implication of this for web designers is that styles can never be enforced, merely suggested. And it further implies that design effort should go into the architecture of a document, not into its appearance.