I opposed removing printed scores and went through three sample QSTs and
found wasted column inches here and there to discard that just about
equaled the page space for scores.
Sent that to the Editor, oh well.
I like the printed version because I can understand and appreciate my score
within the SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION of the other scores. It was satisfying to
quickly see my place in the visually laid out other calls. The space of
the page allowed me to comprehend my place in the greater picture.
This result is so much more informative and satisfying than a small set of
numbers on a screen.
An example comes from my making the transition from real film to
video--teaching the editing of each. With film, there is a tangible length
of a shot that you can see and feel. The length of exposed film shot in a
roll has dimensions that the mind can quickly comprehend, conceptualize,
and fit in with the other rolls there on your table.
With video, the idea of a shot (now called a clip) is displayed as between
2:23:45 and 2:24:11, i.e., as time in a digital display. Conceptually, it
was much harder for the students to think of how long the shot was in video
rather than just looking at the film rolls.
Same difference is the spatial display of What Time Is It... a circular
clock face displays with visible spaces between the numbers; a digital
clock shows only this one minute.
A receiver with a slide rule dial (remember those) gave you a concept of
the space of the band. A digital freq readout number does not. We like
seeing our bands whole as a spread of conceptual space and thus we all like
"bandscopes" (panadapters). We still speak of going up the band like it is
a real place to move around in.
I think in terms of space, not numeric displays of it. I like printed
scores. 73, Charly K4VUD
P.S. Which do you quickly understand:
It is a room about 22feet by 25feet or
It is about the size of a double garage.
CQ-Contest mailing list