Re:Did scientists discover bacteria in meteorites? No.
by Groxx on Friday March 11, 2011 @02:55AM
(#2312594)
Meant to say this earlier, but:
This is interesting. I see your point, but I don't want to concede it :)
To me, visual ugliness is far far less offensive than verbal. Probably because there's so frickin' much assaulting our eyes daily, while there's less verbally, so I'm just more used to filtering things out.
This is especially strange when you consider that, in the case of the Real World, visual ugliness is typically persistent while verbal is transient... but for some reason we put up with billboards every few hundred feet along highways, every time we drive anywhere, but not ads every few minutes on the radio. Is it just that (it seems to me that) we have more choice in what we hear / produce vocally than in what we see, so we put up with it less? I.e., muting something is easier than removing / fixing / repainting it. Though for comparison's sake, I don't have a TV and I don't miss it.
---
At least part of it, for me, is that I can absorb information far more quickly visually than audibly. And I can sort out visual clutter more easily than audible clutter. I was able to parse their page in an instant, and find whatever I desired (and can search within the page for specific terms). Its ugliness didn't significantly impact my ability to interpret its information (some sites do, but rarely, and certainly not this one). But if someone had read the page's contents to me, inflecting at the wrong points or completely monotone, I would have had to sit for a half hour, listening, paying attention, and would've probably left within seconds after realizing that would be the case.
This is interesting. I see your point, but I don't want to concede it :)
To me, visual ugliness is far far less offensive than verbal. Probably because there's so frickin' much assaulting our eyes daily, while there's less verbally, so I'm just more used to filtering things out.
This is especially strange when you consider that, in the case of the Real World, visual ugliness is typically persistent while verbal is transient... but for some reason we put up with billboards every few hundred feet along highways, every time we drive anywhere, but not ads every few minutes on the radio. Is it just that (it seems to me that) we have more choice in what we hear / produce vocally than in what we see, so we put up with it less? I.e., muting something is easier than removing / fixing / repainting it. Though for comparison's sake, I don't have a TV and I don't miss it.
---
At least part of it, for me, is that I can absorb information far more quickly visually than audibly. And I can sort out visual clutter more easily than audible clutter. I was able to parse their page in an instant, and find whatever I desired (and can search within the page for specific terms). Its ugliness didn't significantly impact my ability to interpret its information (some sites do, but rarely, and certainly not this one). But if someone had read the page's contents to me, inflecting at the wrong points or completely monotone, I would have had to sit for a half hour, listening, paying attention, and would've probably left within seconds after realizing that would be the case.