I actually really like it. There's good evidence that our minds understand language in tree structure. Now, if the program fails at it, it could cause more harm than good. Especially now that you don't need to fill the line because everything isn't on paper, there's no reason to not let the document get long. What's wrong with comprehension?
actual syntax trees don't look like that, though: they are much more complex. this software chooses to break down sentences into units whose relationship to the mind's units is bound to be a bit arbitrary. the indentations this thing uses, for instance, don't make a lot of sense. why are lines 4, 8, and 11 all indented the same? 11 is clearly subordinate to 8, in that "the separate and equal station" is what is being "assumed."
as for "comprehension," the things "comprehension tests" test for may be enhanced by this software---in all likelihood it was developed using those tests! but, as a close-reading zealot, i fear that for every aspect of comprehension enhanced by this thing, something else will be lost.
an analogy: this program is like an automatic microscope focuser that always focuses to the same setting. that's fine if you're not very good with microscopes, but if you can use the microscope yourself, it's really more of an impediment than an advantage.
What if it did look like an actual syntax tree, though? ...never mind that who knows how the brain *actually* processes this stuff, and that most varieties of actual syntax tree would be an impediment to reading; suppose the line breaks and intendentations were a little more regular, syntactically, and made sense?
Well, that's my point, it can't look like an actual syntax tree. What's wrong with the current system again? I know shorter line lengths are good, so we can just have shorter lines if we want. I dislike the extra layer of structural interpretation that this program adds.
Hey. I find it stupid too. I actually find it harder to read the latter that's all broken up. I think having to mentally break down the clauses of a passage is what helps me comprehend the meaning of it.
what controls did they have? Did they test their bot against lines of equal width, of < 50 chars? Did they test it against a bot which returns and indents lines arbitrarily?
Comments 11
Reply
as for "comprehension," the things "comprehension tests" test for may be enhanced by this software---in all likelihood it was developed using those tests! but, as a close-reading zealot, i fear that for every aspect of comprehension enhanced by this thing, something else will be lost.
an analogy: this program is like an automatic microscope focuser that always focuses to the same setting. that's fine if you're not very good with microscopes, but if you can use the microscope yourself, it's really more of an impediment than an advantage.
Reply
That said, the microscope analogy makes sense.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
what controls did they have? Did they test their bot against lines of equal width, of < 50 chars? Did they test it against a bot which returns and indents lines arbitrarily?
Reply
Leave a comment