Can You Read This?

Most people have no problem reading and
understanding this paragraph:

"I cnduo't bvleiee taht I culod aulaclty uesdtannrd
waht I was rdnaieg. Unisg the icndeblire pweor
of the hmuan mnid, aocdcrnig to rseecrah at
Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mttaer in waht
oderr the lterets in a wrod are, the olny irpoamtnt
tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rhgit
pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can
sitll raed it whoutit a pboerlm. Tihs is bucseae the
huamn mnid deos not raed ervey ltteer by istlef,
but the wrod as a wlohe. Aaznmig, huh? Yaeh and
I awlyas tghhuot slelinpg was ipmorantt!"

Thats why I write sentences that are only 10-12
words long. You can read and understand my posts
faster than the ones that scroll all the way across
the page. Your brain works much faster than you
think it does. Some of your brains, anyway.

pretty cool, seen it before, but the human mind is amazing, even yours Bob

ALZHEIMERS' EYE TEST

Count every " F " in the following text:

FINISHED FILES ARE THE RE
SULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTI
FIC STUDY COMBINED WITH
THE EXPERIENCE OF YEARS...

HOW MANY ? 3?

WRONG, THERE ARE 6
READ IT AGAIN !
The brain cannot process "OF".

I've seen that before as well.

Quote: EvenBob

You can read and understand my posts
faster than the ones that scroll all the way across
the page.

Your use of the phrase "scroll across the page" is intriguing. Do you mean to infer that on your computer you have to use the horizontal scroll controls to read other people's posts?

If so, that's nuts, and something is wrong with your computer. If not, if you merely meant that it's difficult for your eye to scan the line and not lose place when returning to the beginning of the next line, then the answer is simple. Just keep the paragraphs short, and include a blank line between them.

THAT'S the key to making it possible to read wide screens easily.

And it's a LOT easier to do than your method of short lines.

I know from experience. Because I like and respect you, I did the short line thing when responding to your private messages. But frankly, it was a pain in the ass.

It's a hoax. Cambridge (or any other) university never made such claim, as it is completely false.
The message quoted is not randomly scrambled, but carefully engineered to appear garbled but still be readable. Human brain has no innate ability to decipher words by first and last letters. If you doubt it, try reading this:

Bblaaesl pryleas pnmrrioefg sllaimy aeoulltsby dvrseee clbrpmaaoe tteenmrat.

he didn't say cambridge made the claim,
he said it was Cmabrigde Uinervtisy.
geez, get your facts straight.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Your use of the phrase "scroll across the page" is intriguing. Do you mean to infer that on your computer you have to use the horizontal scroll controls to read other people's posts?

Scroll with my eyes.

Quote: weaselman

It's a hoax. ... If you doubt it, try reading this:

Bblaaesl pryleas pnmrrioefg sllaimy aeoulltsby dvrseee clbrpmaaoe tteenmrat.

I admit I have a lot of trouble with "sllaimy."

Quote: WongBo

ALZHEIMERS' EYE TEST

Count every " F " in the following text:

FINISHED FILES ARE THE RE
SULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTI
FIC STUDY COMBINED WITH
THE EXPERIENCE OF YEARS...

HOW MANY ? 3?

WRONG, THERE ARE 6
READ IT AGAIN !
The brain cannot process "OF".

SUPER!!!!

It's a typo :)
Try "slralimiy" instead.

The point is not to see whether you can decipher it or not (of course, you can), but whether it requires significantly more effort than reading normal text (as the author of the original hoax implied that it should not).

Its also true that paragraphs written in all
CAPS are hard to read because the word
shapes become less distinctive and this is
confusing to our brains. We didn't learn to
read sentences with all caps, so we don't
know how to do it quickly.

Quote: EvenBob

Its also true that paragraphs written in all
CAPS are hard to read ....

I suspect that WongBo's "ALZHEIMERS' EYE TEST" is also deceptive in that it begins with the alliteration of "FINISHED FILES", likely leading folks searching for Fs to focus on first letters at the expense of last letters (as in "OF").

OK great, now we have an excuse for
everyone who is a crappy typer and/or
speller !

And
somehow
also
for
those
who
can
not
type
across
the
page.

Weaselman I don't believe you that that's a hoax. I want to know what phrase you wrote (I'm too lazy to decipher it myself) Because I would argue that if they're words not seen on a daily basis they're much harder to read, and if there's not context, which your phrase is too short to have, then it's harder. I think it has more to do with familiarity of words and context than actually recognizing the word by itself.

Quote: ewjones080

I want to know what phrase you wrote (I'm too lazy to decipher it myself)

I hate to spoil the fun, but here goes. Initially, weaselman offered:

"Bblaaesl pryleas pnmrrioefg sllaimy aeoulltsby dvrseee clbrpmaaoe tteenmrat."

After correcting his typo, it would be:

"Bblaaesl pryleas pnmrrioefg slralimiy aeoulltsby dvrseee clbrpmaaoe tteenmrat."

That would translate as:



Now I have no idea whether that sentence was chosen to be particularly challenging or the original "hoax" was chosen to be particularly easy to read. Why don't you choose a sentence and then randomize the internal letters to see how obvious it is?

Doc -

Holy crap!

Not only is that line challenging as a scrambler, it's also quite challenging as a tongue twister!

It's an example of this 'thing' taken to an extreme.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Holy crap!

Great comment from a "Rrneeved".

Quote: Doc

I suspect that WongBo's "ALZHEIMERS' EYE TEST" is also deceptive in that it begins with the alliteration of "FINISHED FILES", likely leading folks searching for Fs to focus on first letters at the expense of last letters (as in "OF").

Its because we think of OF as an OV sound, not a FFF sound.

Quote: thecesspit

Its because we think of OF as an OV sound, not a FFF sound.

So much so that many people think the correct spelling for "shoudda" is "should of."

In reality, it's "should've." Or "should have."

here is what someone at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy
had to say about the OP.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

So much so that many people think the correct spelling for "shoudda" is "should of."

It seems it's also a bit hard to hear on occasion. When a jet crashed in Washington DC shortly after takeoff, one problem for the crash investigators was determining whether the de-icing gear was switched on or off. From the cockpit voice recorder, it seemed that during the checklist the copilot said "onf." I forget what was ruled as the cause of the crash.

There is a big factor here (in the ALZHEIMERS' EYE TEST) that it is really difficult to scan a mass of info and pick out what you are looking for, even if it is something that seems to be obvious. It almost has to be staring you in the face and shouting. That is why I thought having the first two words begin with "F" was an added distraction.

Here's one of my annoying side stories to illustrate the point:

I was teaching a management course in which quality control was covered, and I included statistical sampling plans. Starting off, I wanted to show that 100% (or higher) inspection, rather than sampling, did not necessarily give perfect results at detecting defective units. I conducted a little exercise in which the students were given a sheet of paper with 40 rows of 10 three-digit numbers printed on it. They were told to look at each of the numbers one time and mark it as a "defect" if the number was between 474 and 527 inclusive. Should be clear and fairly simple, right? Looking at each number once only was considered equivalent to 100% inspection.

In most cases, students missed at least one of the "defective" numbers, often missing several. Here is the set of numbers I used in class, in case you would like to give it a try. How many "defects" do you see on a single scan? Note, this does not involve any particular three-digit numbers that our brain supposedly "cannot process" like the word "OF".

422 930 471 386 379 297 302 263 840 942
410 227 375 828 559 107 101 583 691 786
631 344 273 423 782 801 744 683 879 441
608 828 498 361 954 302 555 330 116 125
570 575 497 707 970 391 419 320 852 145
114 880 241 938 136 878 588 674 399 905
955 341 740 708 235 548 828 368 240 263
724 156 247 832 892 754 405 606 200 894
466 712 818 600 120 925 848 947 411 756
933 922 960 751 923 154 299 727 288 115
169 553 933 161 782 706 731 607 339 541
234 457 461 396 127 180 545 464 604 543
466 969 333 149 364 995 435 873 854 586
379 538 108 397 505 638 750 189 549 128
169 479 698 915 255 531 246 794 176 372
277 785 422 356 263 187 688 510 368 902
419 556 876 690 657 599 101 641 909 245
441 550 394 564 228 643 450 487 701 853
605 717 364 432 696 337 212 795 342 518
419 599 948 136 705 199 987 582 426 827
979 191 482 964 417 285 735 840 795 630
563 473 148 424 413 468 436 499 707 661
710 890 388 371 761 498 990 305 602 182
216 700 945 110 682 856 169 453 894 802
776 249 515 782 156 477 479 542 399 273
435 559 838 615 557 858 985 656 436 103
869 617 272 370 682 870 588 267 301 599
162 323 350 484 307 161 532 819 266 715
246 165 132 237 712 261 956 595 268 117
346 876 948 930 208 542 706 489 624 939
613 732 377 978 422 371 498 254 700 696
778 377 393 750 766 140 585 887 945 666
955 573 587 576 997 349 506 324 174 912
769 136 153 168 675 544 520 797 831 275
816 386 284 726 259 524 761 541 899 709
295 747 670 171 808 933 624 553 286 298
140 400 578 970 160 905 425 736 406 620
115 821 438 364 116 919 219 825 618 465
642 412 891 250 377 951 219 589 918 166
253 113 448 705 325 786 657 155 288 777

So how many "defective" numbers did you find? You might try scanning the list again (200% inspection) to see if you get the same answer.

two times scanned, same result

I get how it is challenging, but I don't understand how it illustrates the point that 100% inspection is not better than sampling. Are you saying, one would be likely to miss less "defective numbers" using sampling?

Quote: WongBo

Show Spoiler

NINETEEN.

two times scanned, same result

With an answer given with such confidence, we are unlikely now to have anyone post that they found fewer. Should we wait to see whether someone reports finding more defects?

In class, I typically had no more than about 1/4 of the students get the right answer on first try. Hope you had some fun with it anyway.

Quote: weaselman

I don't understand how it illustrates the point that 100% inspection is not better than sampling.

The idea is to show that making large numbers of routine inspections leads to boredom, inattention to detail, and likely a few errors while at the same time being much more costly than inspecting a representative sample. If you really are manufacturing a product with a defect percentage as high as in this exercise of three-digit numbers, then you probably do need to examine every unit. But if you are running 0.1% defects and having humans examine every unit, the 99.9% OK experience will lead to boredom even quicker, and the 0.1% are likely to be missed anyway.

Quality control via statistical sampling assumes that you will devote most of your resources to avoiding making the defects in the first place. The sampling/testing procedure is used to detect whether something went wrong with your process so that you started making defective units. If your process got screwed up somehow, it is likely that a sampling inspection will find some defects, indicating that you should go back and check out all that you produced during that period. There are statistical methods for sampling that are guided by the defect rate that the process is expected to produce when running properly and the defect rate that is unacceptable and must be detected.

If you have a 100% inspection plan in place, there is also the possibility that the manufacturing unit might become lax with the attitude, "If we screw one of them up, they will catch it in inspection." The better practice is to devote full attention to making a high quality product and inspect at a level to assure that you did so.

Sampling inspections are particularly relevant when the inspection test is destructive, e.g., ultimate tensile strength. Using 100% inspection for the long term in that case can really eat into your sales.

Two words for you: QA Automation :)

sorry, Doc
i meant to use the spoiler function !!
i will use it now if you want to remove my quote!

Yes, of course. My little exercise can be solved quickly and accurately by a computer. But lots of errors were made in the manual process in the classroom.

And in a production environment, high-volume automated testing is the norm, but it all too frequently gives some erroneous results. There are those products where it is unacceptable for a single defective unit to ever leave the facility, and that can dictate an inspection procedure. It is far more common that some small (tiny?) amount of defects, possibly later returns for refund, are tolerable, and sample inspection is used to determine when something has gone out of whack with the manufacturing process.

Quote: WongBo

sorry, Doc
i meant to use the spoiler function !!
i will use it now if you want to remove my quote!

Done. Not really a problem to have your answer out there, of course. I doubt there will be many who bother to give that exercise a try. It's waaayy off topic for the thread.

Quote: Doc

The idea is to show that making large numbers of routine inspections leads to boredom, inattention to detail, and likely a few errors while at the same time being much more costly than inspecting a representative sample.

I can attest to that. In our work we produce long lists of products with varying degrees of detail. One mistake means the whole propposal is thrown out. So we check line by line. When the lists are really long, say 150+ products, it's common to lose track, read the thign wrong, etc. It's worse when we do this at 2 am after a very long day of working, too. But we really have no choice.

Quote:

If you have a 100% inspection plan in place, there is also the possibility that the manufacturing unit might become lax with the attitude, "If we screw one of them up, they will catch it in inspection." The better practice is to devote full attention to making a high quality product and inspect at a level to assure that you did so.

I can attest to that, too. I've done it :) I'd focus in getting the product list with details and prices out ASAP, and didn't worry abuot it being right at all, since it's going to be checked anyway, right?

I almost lost my job doing that, too.

Anyway, when things aren't standarized, it's much worse. Remind me to tell you the story of the million-dollar sugar when we meet at WovCon. It will go well with the story of the most expensive piece of Scotch tape.

I got . I wanted to see how well I'd do, as as QA is my chosen skill set (obviously for this type of task I would automate it, which I did to check what the right answer was).

In Groovy :



(I don't claim this efficient.)

i looked at it in a spreadsheet and got .
how did you only get your answer cesspit?

I should add that the script what I wrote got .

Quote: WongBo

i looked at it in a spreadsheet and got

Show Spoiler

TWENTY

.
how did you only get your answer cesspit?

Pretty sure you have the wrong answer there. If you are using the "between" highlighting rule in XLS, it's a inclusive not exclusive check, so between 473 and 528 will get you your answer, but you should do between 474 and 527.

my first answer was the same as your second answer.
i guess it proves the point, when i reviewed it again i got a different answer.

I hadn't really expected my old exercise to generate much interest. But now we have three (different) spoiler-button-hidden answers, and two computer scripts for solving the problem. Can you see how I enjoyed abusing the students in my classes?

Quote: weaselman

It's a hoax. Cambridge (or any other) university never made such claim, as it is completely false.
The message quoted is not randomly scrambled, but carefully engineered to appear garbled but still be readable. Human brain has no innate ability to decipher words by first and last letters. If you doubt it, try reading this:

Bblaaesl pryleas pnmrrioefg sllaimy aeoulltsby dvrseee clbrpmaaoe tteenmrat.

The puzzle is listed in Snopes urban legends as circulating in September 2003. But I agree that it is ridiculous to think that first and last letters of a word are sufficient for comprehension.

For starters word length is identical. There is also short words or word's that are easily comprehensible like "taht" or "waht" even though misspelled.

I cnduo't bvleiee taht I culod aulaclty uesdtannrd waht I was rdnaieg.
I couldn't believe that I could actually understand what I was reading.

here is another "can you read this?" challenge
try reading this list out loud, as fast as you can.
instead of reading the words, "read" it using the colors of the words.

The short lines stuff is also up for debate (several studies have shown both ways...). Personally, I like to read across the length of my screen, and can configure it to show as much width or as little as I need, so don't need anyone to add hard carriage returns to alter the layout for me. I can do that myself. But I don't really care that much.

Quote: thecesspit

The short lines stuff is also up for debate (several studies have shown both ways...). Personally, I like to read across the length of my screen, and can configure it to show as much width or as little as I need, so don't need anyone to add hard carriage returns to alter the layout for me. I can do that myself. But I don't really care that much.

Perhaps I misunderstood. If I adjust my browser window wider, I just get blank space on either side of the forum block. If I adjust the browser window more narrow, I lose part of the forum block and have to use a slider bar to scroll back and forth. Are you saying that with a narrower browser window setting you get the text in this forum to realign, like it does with a word processor document window? I would love to have that working when I try to read this stuff on my mobile phone with its small screen -- then I have to stretch/magnify the block in order to be able to read the text, but then I have to scroll the window, which annoys me.

Quote: miplet

My attempt

18

That makes four different answers.

Quote: WongBo

here is another "can you read this?" challenge
try reading this list out loud, ten times, as fast as you can.
instead of reading the words, "read" it using the colors of the words.

That one is a lot harder when the words are denser and smaller.

EDIT : I see the linky changed. That image is much harder to do. Obviously (or so I thought), pre-school children find that task much easier than adults, mostly because they don't read very well.

Quote: Doc

Perhaps I misunderstood. If I adjust my browser window wider, I just get blank space on either side of the forum block. If I adjust the browser window more narrow, I lose part of the forum block and have to use a slider bar to scroll back and forth. Are you saying that with a narrower browser window setting you get the text in this forum to realign, like it does with a word processor document window? I would love to have that working when I try to read this stuff on my mobile phone with its small screen -- then I have to stretch/magnify the block in order to be able to read the text, but then I have to scroll the window, which annoys me.

You are correct, I had never noticed it on here before, as I find the central column width for reading here fine.

Hmmm, on my mobile it formats to the width fine. I just turn it side ways and it seems to flow around fine (unless someone posts a large picture). On my PC it doesn't. That's odd, as other sites do format around the window width. Might be a browser thing.

Quote: weaselman

Two words for you: QA Automation :)

perl -ne 'foreach(split(/\s/)) { $n++ if $_ >= 474 && $_ <= 527; } END { print "$n\n"; }'

Ahh, this made my day. Nothing like a good perl one-liner.