-announce
Follow
Like
+1
The standard typography of exponential notation is poor visual display of quantitative information. The important parts are the smallest. This impairs education. On the web, we can flexibly provide better formats (in addition to the standard).
Consider exponential notation from the perspective of the visual display of quantitative information.
4.56 × 102 m wavelength
Ink spent on repetitive boilerplate, has the lowest information value.
So which parts are the important parts?
| 2 | |||
| 4 | |||
| .56 | |||
| × 10 |
So let's represent that importance typographically.
| 4 | .56 | × 10 | 2 |
Ha, no. The opposite. Importance should be prominent.
And ordered by importance,
This is what expert eyes do automagically.
Or not. How many times have med school students seen cellular sizes given in exponential notation? And how many can now recall how big cells are, to within an order of magnitude or two?
For non-expert eyes, perhaps the occasional use of a less obscuring and misleading typography, could help make science education content less of a disaster.
A placeholder {stub page}.
Units.
Demo flexible policy-based rewriting. Library and jquery plugin. Demo popups with alternate representations. Add fake landscapes & landmarks graphic. torque screwdriver; kg cat. Discuss layouts and policies.
Link "students give numbers without units" literature. Link/discuss exponential notation misconceptions.
Multiple examples. Restore the incremental improvement, or fade-out, intro examples? Flowing into popup and landscapes. Deal with quantities? Invide discussion and alternatives.