Cursive Is Quicker Than Printing (?)

[beak]

Just slamming up a quick thread commenting on my difficulty with statements such as 'I print because it's quicker.' which I have seen here several times recently.

 

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 April 14, 2011 by beak

[Splicer]

I think you're right about this, but ultimately I think a sort of hybrid form is the fastest. The way I was taught cursive in grade school, there were a few convoluted paths to make sure that each letter connected with the last. For me it's fastest if I only connect the letters that are convenient to connect and let some of the letters stand alone or connect only on one side.

 

For example, I always lift my pen to start a lowercase 'c'. In grade school I was taught to enter the curve, follow it up and over, then retrace the curve back around and down. It really seems faster and easier for me to move the pen to the upper terminal of the 'c'. Similarly I often connect my lowercase 'l' to the following letter but almost never to the preceding letter.

 

I'm a little envious. My lifetime of drawing has not resulted in good handwriting.

[beak]

I take your point about retracing the curve of the 'c' and similar letters - just tried it your way, and of course it seems strange to me, and no quicker, but that's just me.

 

I have never found any connection between the ability to draw and the ability to write, not saying there is none, but while I can say that my drawing has been 'up there' for many years, it did not automatically tow my writing along with it, and I've had to work on that as a separate skill.

[Splicer]

I gave it some more thought and actually, I do a bunch of stuff that does not make my writing any faster, though it's neither traditional in printing nor cursive. So I think I've disqualified myself from claiming I do anything because it's faster.

 

Example: I often connect c's and s's to t's with a loop from the top of the c or s clockwise up from the x-line and then down to form the stem of the t. I think any examination of my handwriting would reveal that it was slower and less efficient than good cursive—or printing, for that matter.

[blackrainstorm]

I wholeheartedly agree with you beak. I believe that cursive is faster than print in general. However, to add another level, I believe that it could be argued that printing is actually faster with an HB pencil on paper because it is easier to put enough pressure to mark on the paper than with cursive. With a fountain pen or similar device, I only use cursive, but I prefer to print with a pencil because I find it hard to make a dark enough line with cursive without going slowly.

[JefferyS]

I'm one of those instigators . I have several colleagues whose handwriting is totally illegible, and it is cursive (longhand, or connected). It is because of folks like these that we have the plea of "please print" on forms. When I try to write in neat printed letters, it is slower than trying to write in haphazard cursive, so the end product is definitely a big factor. When writing comments on students' papers, I always print to ensure legibility. And when I take notes as fast as I can, I get that hybrid of printing and cursive that invariably has cursive "b", "p", "y", and "d" letters, but most other letters printed.

 

I just tried grading some lab papers using a stub nib held a 45^o with italic letters (uppercase and lowercase). It looks cool, but took a long time. I could have done it in 15% of the time had I used my hybrid printing/cursive.

[Randal6393]

The old saying is, "Practice makes perfect." Inherently, I do not feel that print or cursive is faster. It all depends on the individual, how he writes, and how practiced he is.

 

Many of the proponents of fast cursive should be quick at it. They have learned cursive, much the same way typing is taught in school (or, was, I should say). Practice and drill helps -- especially if it is reinforced by a lifetime of work.

 

Enjoy,

[ethernautrix]

I wouldn't claim to write faster printing (or the hybrid thing that Steve mentioned) than writing cursive, but I write quickly printing/hybrid-thingy. Witnesses have remarked on it.

 

The faster I write, regardless, the more illegible my writing. Haa.

[Chthulhu]

I find that cursive can be faster to put down on paper than manuscript (what has been referred to above as "printing"), but slower to read. It's prettier when done well, but our eyes and brains are trained to read print (not handwriting) from an early age, and reading speed suffers considerably when we're presented with a page of cursive.

 

I'd rather write (and read!) something legible than something pretty.

 

Calligraphy is art, not writing, and was not considered in forming this opinion. :-)

[rhosygell]

I write pretty quickly using cursive, manuscript (printing) is somewhat slower. Anyway, illegibility works in direct proportion to speed - the faster I write, the worse my already iffy handwriting becomes.

[StyloBug33]

I did a quick little timed test, and I definitely write quicker while printing.

[wallylynn]

My fastest writing is neither print, nor cursive, but a semi-joined italic-wannabe. It's what my block printing and cursive evolved into. I can move my fingers quickly, my arm - not so much.

 

I couldn't find the FPN threads/posts regarding the handwriting contests. The current World Handwriting Contest is now split into Manuscript and Cursive. I don't remember such a split in the past. I couldn't find the list but vaguely remember prior winners to be almost all print/non-cursive.

 

But I did manage to find this blog post by one of our respected members:

http://thepetulantchild.edublogs.org/2010/03/07/should-we-let-cursive-die/

 

Kate Gladstone on March 9, 2010 11:40 am

 

Research shows that the fastest and most legible handwriters avoid cursive. The highest-speed highest-legibility handwriters join only some letters (not all of them) — making only the easiest joins and skipping the rest — and tend to use print-like letter-shapes for those letters whose printed and cursive shapes disagree.

 

[beak]

Lots of interesting stuff to think about!

 

There seem to be some terminology problems, for me at least...

 

'Manuscript' has always meant that written by hand - (manual) why would this ever mean 'printing' as distinct from cursive? I guess the term 'printing' stems from the use of individual little bits of lead type used by compositors; 'print' therefore = use separate letters - not joined together. To call such 'manuscript' seems a terrible obfuscation and a totally unnecessary one - anyone know where this usage came from?

 

'Cursive' - running writing - joined up. Cursive does not, to me, mean calligraphy, but ordinary, everyday joined-up handwriting - there is a distinction surely. Aesthetic appearance is not the province of cursive any more than it is of printing, and is not the main reason for its use. I think that 'calligraphy' has a stronger connection to aesthetics. To contradict myself immediately, I do of course use some letter forms because I think that they look better, even if they may be a little slower.

 

Speed-writing competitions are interesting, though a bit beyond my level, for one! Some alteration from earlier forms and 'accepted' copybook norms of cursive happen individually, of course, and we all make our own changes as suits us - I've noticed that though my cursive is of a fairly standard form, I too skip some joins here and there, such as beginning some ascenders at their top instead of sweeping up to the top and then back down again. The writing is still clearly cursive, just with personal foibles.

 

Can only agree that rushing any form of writing will make it potentially unreadable. My only real point is that, with due care for legibility, it's quicker, basically, to join the letters rather than write them individually, and that properly made cursive is no less legible than printing, though for most of us will require more practise before it is.

Edited April 14, 2011 by beak

[JefferyS]

That's a very good point about the language on an international forum. I recently read Henry's Demons, written by a father and son in England. It took me slightly longer to finish because I had to put my Kindle cursor on various unfamiliar words that had USA equivalents to get a definition lookup (e.g., torch for flashlight, and lift for elevator, though I already knew those). From another thread, I noticed that even different regions of the USA have used different words for "joined" handwriting. It would be interesting to see what the Unabridged Oxford Dictionary has to say on the matter.

 

I wonder if it would even be possible to create a lexicon of terms associated with penmanship. There does seem to be overlap.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Jeffery Smith

[beak]

That's a very good point about the language on an international forum. ...................

 

I used to get annoyed by this sort of thing, then I found an answer; I now treat American usage as a foreign language, and give it the respect that I would to French or German. This helps in that I see American usage less as a series of unnecessary confusions and more as a language understood by those who use it. Perhaps some Americans may find profit in that approach to British usage as well - it certainly lowers frustration levels!

 

We two have to accept that usage varies, not fight it or entrench ourselves parochially, and make an effort to accommodate that fact. I find that on this site at least, those from both sides of the Atlantic are doing that more and more.

Edited April 15, 2011 by beak

[ethernautrix]

Taking legibility into account, the difference in the speed of my printing vs. cursive is negligible. I write faster with a fountain pen, though.

 

 

[JefferyS]

That's a very good point about the language on an international forum. ...................

 

I used to get annoyed by this sort of thing, then I found an answer; I now treat American usage as a foreign language, and give it the respect that I would to French or German. This helps in that I see American usage less as a series of unnecessary confusions and more as a language understood by those who use it. Perhaps some Americans may find profit in that approach to British usage as well - it certainly lowers frustration levels!

 

We two have to accept that usage varies, not fight it or entrench ourselves parochially, and make an effort to accommodate that fact.

I get annoyed with the American language when something is done wrong so often that we decide to make it correct. I still abide by Strunk and White's Elements of Style, and I don't drop the last comma before the "and". In local usage here, it's okay to say "Will you bring me to the store" when "take" seems like the only way to say it. And nearly everyone down here says "Will you join Jeff and I?" My knees buckle.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Jeffery Smith

[ethernautrix]

I get annoyed with the American language when something is done wrong so often that we decide to make it correct. I still abide by Strunk and White's Elements of Style, and I don't drop the last comma before the "and". In local usage here, it's okay to say "Will you bring me to the store" when "take" seems like the only way to say it. And nearly everyone down here says "Will you join Jeff and I?" My knees buckle.

 

 

Oh man, don't I started!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hee!

[beak]

I find that cursive can be faster to put down on paper than manuscript (what has been referred to above as "printing"), but slower to read. It's prettier when done well, but our eyes and brains are trained to read print (not handwriting) from an early age, and reading speed suffers considerably when we're presented with a page of cursive.

 

I'd rather write (and read!) something legible than something pretty.

 

Calligraphy is art, not writing, and was not considered in forming this opinion. :-)

Good point about speed of reading, I think.

 

Instinctively, I put that down to the reader's unfamiliarity with cursive rather than any inherent lack of readability in it.

 

I've picked up from FPN that many younger people cannot read it at all - but should that be 'cannot read it yet', or even 'will not read it', I wonder. BIg problem for those dictating educational policy - teach people to use, and therefore be able to read cursive or not. This has been debated in other threads at some length. Personally, I feel echos of that time when parents were told that their child would not be taught much basic arithmatic because everyone would be using pocket calculators when they grew up. Oh yes, that happened occasionally! Yuk - big mistake!

 

ETA

If this thread should conclude that cursive is quicker, then what reason is there not to teach it?

Edited April 15, 2011 by beak

[humblescribbler]

I find that cursive can be faster to put down on paper than manuscript (what has been referred to above as "printing"), but slower to read. It's prettier when done well, but our eyes and brains are trained to read print (not handwriting) from an early age, and reading speed suffers considerably when we're presented with a page of cursive.

 

I'd rather write (and read!) something legible than something pretty.

 

Calligraphy is art, not writing, and was not considered in forming this opinion. :-)

Good point about speed of reading, I think.

 

Instinctively, I put that down to the reader's unfamiliarity with cursive rather than any inherent lack of readability in it.

 

I've picked up from FPN that many younger people cannot read it at all - but should that be 'cannot read it yet', or even 'will not read it', I wonder. BIg problem for those dictating educational policy - teach people to use, and therefore be able to read cursive or not. This has been debated in other threads at some length. Personally, I feel echos of that time when parents were told that their child would not be taught much basic arithmatic because everyone would be using pocket calculators when they grew up. Oh yes, that happened occasionally! Yuk - big mistake!

 

And yet I've always been told by professional printers (type setters, print designers?) that reading is faster and more comprehensive when the eye and mind work together as forward progress on the page, and thus into the thought? It's not about unfamiliarity per se, but a visual connectivity inherant in some good designs. Bad designs can "stop" the mind.

 

There's some of that I linked below here, but it digresses from the original point of using cursive vs. printing or some combination. I'm in the combo field. Fastest for me but legible by those around me. Worse is my own cursive for quick thoughts that I can't later translate myself! Embarrassing indeed.

 

Thanks,

 

Michael

 

http://www.smashingm...sing-typefaces/