A survey of typography, graphic design, and physical media in technical reports
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Pinelli, T. E.↗
Engineering topics
Cordle, V. M.
Publications and source records attributed to Cordle, V. M..
Typography and layout of technical reports - Survey of current practices
As part of a review of the NASA Langley Research Center scientific and technical information program, 50 technical reports from industry, research institutions, and government agencies were systematically examined and analyzed to determine current usage and practice in regard to (1) typography, including composition method, type style, type size, and margin treatment; (2) graphic design, including layout and imposition of material on the page; and (3) physical media, including paper, ink, and binding methods. The results indicate that approximately 50 percent of the reports were typeset, 70 percent used Roman (serif) type, 80 percent used 10- or 11-point type for text, 60 percent used a ragged right-hand margin, slightly more than half used paragraph indentation, 75 percent used a single-column layout, 65 percent had one or more figures or tables placed perpendicular to (not aligned with) the text, and perfect binding was the most frequently used binding method.
Pinelli, T. E.↗
Toward the development of guidelines for technical report preparation
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard Z39.18, 'Guidelines for Format and Production of Scientific and Technical Reports', is undergoing revision. Background describing the standard's evolution is presented as is the strategy used for undertaking the revision. The issues central to revising the standard are presented along with an explanation of how each issue will be handled. Related research and literature relevant to the standard's revision are included.
Pinelli, T. E.↗
Preferences on technical report format - Results of a survey
A survey of 513 engineers and scientists employed at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Langley Research Center and 600 engineers and scientists from three professional/technical societies solicited the opinions of report users concerning the format of NASA technical reports. The results indicate that a summary as well as an abstract should be included, that the definitions of symbols and glossary of terms should be located in the front of the report, and that the illustrative material should be integrated with the text rather than grouped at the end of the report. Citation of references by number, one-column, ragged-right-margin layout, and third-person writing style are also preferred by a majority of the respondents.
Pinelli, T. E.↗
The function of report components in the screening and reading of technical reports
A reader preference survey of engineers and scientists at the NASA Langley Research Center and in three professional/technical societies was conducted to determine the opinions of report users and producers concerning the format (organization) of NASA technical reports and the usage of technical report components. The survey questionnaire contained fourteen questions covering twelve survey topics. This article reports the findings of two survey topics: the components initially reviewed or read to determine whether to read a report in its entirety and the order in which report components are read.
Pinelli, T. E.↗
Report format preferences of technical managers and nonmanagers
A survey of engineers and scientists concerning the format of NASA technical reports indicates that a summary as well as an abstract should be included, that the definitions of symbols and glossary of terms should be located in the front of the report, and that the illustrative material should be integrated with the text rather than grouped at the end of the report. Citation of references by number, one-column, ragged-right-margin layout, and third-person writing style are also preferred by a majority of the respondents. The preferences of managers and nonmanagers are very similar for all aspects of technical report format covered by the survey.
Pinelli, T. E.↗
Report-reading patterns of technical managers and nonmanagers
A survey to determine the review and reading processes used by technical managers and nonmanagers indicates that the summary, abstract, conclusion, title page, and introduction are the components used most frequently by both groups to decide whether to read a NASA technical report. In the review process, significantly more managers than nonmanagers use the summary and conclusion, whereas significantly more nonmanagers use the abstract and title page. The most common sequence of review consists of the title page, abstract, and summary, in that order, for both groups. In the reading process, the conclusion, results and discussion, and summary are the components read by the highest percentage of both groups.
Pinelli, T. E.↗
Survey of usage of technical report components to establish their most effective organization
A survey of engineers and scientists at NASA's Langley Research Center (LaRC) and in the academic/industrial communities was conducted to determine the opinions of readers concerning the format (organization) of NASA technical reports and usage of technical report components. A survey questionnaire was sent to 513 LaRC engineers and scientists and 600 engineers and scientists from three (3) professional/technical societies. The survey response rates were 74 percent and 85 percent, respectively. The questionnaire contained 14 questions covering 12 survey topics. The results of two of these survey topics - the order in which users read components (Survey Topic 1) and the components reviewed or read to determine whether to read the entire report (Survey Topic 2) - are presented in this paper.
Pinelli, T. E.↗
Survey of reader preferences concerning the format of NASA technical reports
A survey was conducted to determine the opinions of readers concerning the format (organization) of NASA technical reports and usage of technical report components. A survey questionnaire was sent to 513 LaRC engineers and scientists and 600 engineers and scientists from three (3) professional/technical societies. The response rates were 74 and 85 percent, respectively. The questionnaire included the order in which users read report components, the components reviewed or read to determine whether to read a report, report components which could be deleted, the desirability of a table of contents, the desirability of both a summary and abstract, the location of the symbols list and glossary, the integration of illustrative material, the preferred format for reference citations, column layout and right margin treatment, and person/voice. The results of the reader preference survey indicated that the conclusion was the component most often ready by survey respondents. The summary, conclusion, abstract, title page, and introduction were the components used most frequently to determine if a report would actually be read. Respondents indicated that a summary as well as an abstract should be included, that the definition of symbols and glossary of terms should be located in the front of the report, and that illustrative material should be integrated with the text rather than grouped at the end of the report. Citation by number was the preferred format for references. A one-column, ragged right margin was preferred. Third person, passive voice was the style of writing preferred by the respondents.
Pinelli, T. E.↗
An analysis of information design and packaging for an inelastic market
Producers of technical reports can increase the potential use of the technical report, as an information product, by making certain changes to the sequential, language, and presentation components. These improvements, which effect the overall design and packaging of the product, are discussed. These improvements are likely to have their greatest impact on the marginal technical report user. However, these improvements are not without economic consideration. For this reason, cost factors should be calculated to ensure that benefits to the user and/or increased utility will outweight the cost to the producer.
Pinelli, T. E.↗