In passing, I am no stranger to printing block capitals, having drawn technically for most of my life I can print very clearly and at reasonable speed. I can also write clearly at reasonable speed in cursive.
I'm not advocating speed as an all-conquering characteristic that promotes cursive above printing, but only pointing out that, IMO, it is quicker, all other things being equal.
IMO opinion 'I print because it's quicker.' cannot be true, and what is usually meant is 'I print because it's quicker for me because I am not good at cursive writing.'
Printing (either using block capitals or any mixture of upper and lower case letters written individually: not joined to their neighbours) simply must be slower to perform than cursive ('running' writing / joined-up writing), assuming one has facility with both methods.
Firstly, there is the issue of lifting the pen from the paper between letters and between parts of letters when printing. Secondly, the economy of stroke direction, and ease of targeting the nib in cursive writing, compared to drawing block capitals in particular.
We can go into details or not, as others see fit, but I did want to dispel what I believe is a common misunderstanding, and perhaps especially so with younger people who have not yet been introduced to cursive writing.
I should also be genuinely interested to hear from any who disagree that cursive is quicker but would also say that they are equally competent in using either system. Thanks.
Edited by beak, 14 April 2011 - 06:35.