Screen Reading and Comprehension: Differences Between Digital and Print Text, Study notes of Law

Download Screen Reading and Comprehension: Differences Between Digital and Print Text and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!

How to Write a

Kick-Ass Brief

Supplemental Reading

CAFL Appellate

Certification Training

Table of Contents

EFFECTIVE BRIEF WRITING TIPS

LEGAL WRITING IN THE ELECTRONIC AGE

FACTS SECTION SNIPPET

FACTS SECTION MEMO

DRAFTING HEADINGS AND TABLES OF CONTENTS

CAFL APPELLATE BRIEF CHECKLIST

If you’ve got a lot of facts in your sentence, cite

them right away. Don’t wait until the end of the

sentence.

Conversely, don’t add facts that are not in your

record.

4. SHORT IS GOOD, SHORTER IS BETTER – Mass. R. App. P. 16(h)

50 - page limit.

Try for shorter.

Judges love brevity.

Keep footnotes to an absolute minimum.

5. KEEP IT CONFIDENTIAL – Mass. R. App. P. 16(d)

No last names of any party. Instead use first names

and last initials. Refer to mother as “Mother” or

“Ms. J.”, father as “Father” or “Mr. P.”, and

children by their first names.

Don’t just use all initials – that’s confusing.

Don’t use fictitious names (unless you’re “back” on

appeal after remand and you’re using the same

fictitious names that the Appeals Court used in

the prior appeal).

Put word “IMPOUNDED” on the cover.

6. FINDINGS AND STATUTES MUST BE ATTACHED AS ADDENDA –

Mass. R. App. P. 16(a)(1)(6).

Paginate them just as they are in the record appendix,

for easy reference.

While only the appellant is required to include the

findings, appellees should do it, too. Why make

the judge reach for your opponent’s brief?

7. BLUEBOOKING

Judges and clerks notice. Sloppy cite forms and sloppy

use of signals make a brief look... well, sloppy.

III. THE ONE RULE FOR WRITING A GOOD “STATEMENT OF CASE”

1. ONLY INCLUDE ESSENTIAL INFORMATION.

What’s essential?

 When case filed

 Where case filed

 When trial held

 When appeal filed

 Other key procedural info if necessary to

Argument

What’s not? Procedural history that isn’t implicated

in your Argument. For example:

 The date counsel was appointed (unless you

have an argument about the trial court’s late

appointment of counsel or denial or counsel,

or about ineffective assistance of counsel)

 The date an guardian ad litem or investigator

was appointed (unless you have an argument

about that person’s conduct or report)

 The dates of pretrial conferences or status

hearings (unless something important took

place at the hearing and you have an argument

about it)

IV. TOP FIVE TIPS FOR WRITING A GOOD FACTS SECTION

1. DON’T WRITE BORING FACTS.

1. 90% of the time, the case is about the facts, not

the law.

2. Get the judge to rely upon your Facts section by:

 Being scrupulously accurate.

 Citing to the record for every fact

mentioned.

Gordon said. "It was 40 degrees out and he had

only a ripped t-shirt on." Seven days went by

before Martha S., Daryl’s mother, called police

looking for him.

No rules prohibit you from making your facts a more

engaging story. Just remember to cite to the record

for each fact.

2. EDIT, EDIT, EDIT!

1. If your Facts are longer than your Argument, cut

them down drastically.

2. Every fact belongs in your brief only if there is

a reason.

 Favorable to your client’s position

 Important background

 Difficult/damaging fact must be dealt with

 Needed for your argument

4. DO NOT ARGUE, EVALUATE OR OPINE IN THE FACTS SECTION

1. In the example, I could have written:

“Unbelievable as it may seem , seven days went

by before Martha S., Daryl’s mother, bothered

to call police looking for him. Why? ”

That will just send the panel to your opponent’s

brief for the real facts.

Better: “Seven days went by before Martha

S., Daryl’s mother, called police looking for

him.”

5. DEAL WITH DIFFICULT FACTS ARTFULLY

You must address bad facts, but you can lessen their

impact by dealing with them artfully.

a. Less detail is good.

b. Pair a bad fact with a good fact.

Let’s say bad fact is mother late for ten visits.

Example: “Although mother was late to ten of

her visits, every one of her visits went well

and the children were always happy to see

her”.

If you represent the appellee-child, and the “bad”

fact is that Mother attended all 50 supervised

visits scheduled by DSS.

Example: Mother attended supervised

visitation.

Or

Example: While mother attended supervised

visitation, she never provided drug screens

or gave DSS her home address as required by

her service plan.

c. Bury the bad fact in the middle of a sentence or,

better yet, in the middle of a paragraph.

IV. FOUR TIPS FOR WRITING A GOOD ARGUMENT SECTION

1. BE CONCISE – CAN A JUDGE FOLLOW YOUR ARGUMENT IF SHE IS

READING IT ON THE TRAIN HOME?

a. Short sentences, short paragraphs.

b. When in doubt, cut a complicated sentence into two

or three smaller ones.

2. DON’T BE TOO “LEARNED”

a. No string cites for basic propositions. Judges

gloss over string cites. Pick the key case (or a

recent case) for your proposition.

b. If you must cite more than one case, use a

parenthetical to explain why each cite is relevant

and important for the judge to read.

c. No big blocks of boilerplate law. Do not cite to

pages of “governing law” divorced from the facts

of your case. Judges gloss over it. Instead,

weave the law into your argument.

“Counsel, let’s say we agree with you - what do you want us

to do?” Make that clear in your brief.

Legal Writing

in the Electronic Age

FDCC Winter Meeting

Charleston, South Carolina

March 6 - 10, 2017

Paper author and moderator:

Charlie Frazier Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend LLP (Dallas, DC)

Panel members:

Honorable John Cannon Few Associate Justice, South Carolina Supreme Court (Columbia, S.C.)

Michael Aylward Morrison Mahoney (Boston, MA)

Bob Olson Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP (Los Angeles, CA)

\ ·.

Legal Writing

in the Electronic Age

FDCC Winter Meeting

Charleston, South Carolina

March 6 - 10, 2017

Paper author and moderator:

Charlie Frazier Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend LLP (Dallas, TX)

Panel members:

Honorable John Cannon Few Associate Justice, South Carolina Supreme Court (Columbia, S. C.)

Michael Aylward Morrison Mahoney (Boston, MA)

Bob Olson Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP (Los Angeles, CA)

ii

 - F. Simplify the presentation - G. Utilize available electronic navigating tools - 1. Bookmarks - 2. Internal hyperlinking - 3. External hyperlinking 

• IV. Conclusion - F. Simplify the presentation - G. Utilize available electronic navigating tools - 1. Bookmarks - 2. Internal hyperlinking - 3. External hyperlinking
  • IV. Conclusion

Charlie Frazier

Charlie Frazier is a partner in the Dallas office of the appellate law

firm of Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend, LLP, with offices also in

Austin and Houston. Charlie has been board certified in civil appellate law

by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization since 1994. For over 27 years,

his appellate and litigation-support practice has covered many areas of civil

law, including substantial experience in complex commercial and

contractual disputes, insurance-coverage and bad-faith disputes, and

professional-liability claims.

Charlie successfully argued before the Supreme Court of the United

States on behalf of ten psychiatrists who were sued by a former patient

under RICO, claiming that a pattern of racketeering activity existed to keep

him under hospitalization. RoteIla v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000). The Court

rejected the patient's argument that accrual of a civil RICO claim is

postponed until the pattern was or should have been discovered, thereby

holding that the patient's claim was time-barred.

Charlie received his B.A., magna cum laude, from Baylor University

and his J.D. from the Baylor School of Law, where he was published in the

Baylor Law Review, on which he held various editorial positions. In between

college and law school, Charlie received the M.A. in International Relations

from the University of Kent, in Canterbury, England, on a Rotary

International Scholarship. He has been listed since 2009 in Best Lawyers in

America in Appellate Law. Charlie is a Vice Chair of the Appellate Section

of the FDCC, and has participated on panel presentations at the 2015 and

2016 Winter Meetings. He currently holds, and has held, several leadership

positions in the Appellate Advocacy Committee of the DRI.

Michael Aylward

Michael Aylward is a senior partner in the Boston office of Morrison

Mahoney LLP where he chairs the firm's complex insurance claims

resolution group. For nearly thirty years, Michael has represented insurers

and reinsurers in coverage disputes around the country concerning the

application of liability insurance policies to commercial claims

involving intellectual property disputes, environmental and mass tort claims

and construction defect litigation. He also consults frequently on bad faith

and ethics disputes and has served as an arbitrator and testified as an

expert in various matters involving coverage and reinsurance issues arising

out of such claims.

In addition to his trial and appellate practice, Michael often testifies

as an expert on insurance-related issues. He is also an AAA-certified

neutral and has served as a party-appointed arbitrator in a number of large

insurance disputes.

iii

Charlie Frazier

Charlie Frazier is a partner in the Dallas office of the appellate law firm of Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend, LLP, with offices also in Austin and Houston. Charlie has been board certified in civil appellate law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization since 1994. For over 27 years, his appellate and litigation-support practice has covered many areas of civil law, including substantial experience in complex commercial and contractual disputes, insurance-coverage and bad-faith disputes, and professional-liability claims.

Charlie successfully argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of ten psychiatrists who were sued by a former patient under RICO, claiming that a pattern of racketeering activity existed to keep him under hospitalization. Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000). The Court rejected the patient's argument that accrual of a civil RICO claim is postponed until the pattern was or should have been discovered, thereby holding that the patient's claim was time-barred.

Charlie received his B.A., magna cum laude, from Baylor University and his J.D. from the Baylor School of Law, where he was published in the Baylor Law Review, on which he held various editorial positions. In between college and law school, Charlie received the M.A. in International Relations from the University of Kent, in Canterbury, England, on a Rotary International Scholarship. He has been listed since 2009 in Best Lawyers in America in Appellate Law. Charlie is a Vice Chair of the Appellate Section of the FDCC, and has participated on panel presentations at the 2015 and 2016 Winter Meetings. He currently holds, and has held, several leadership positions in the Appellate Advocacy Committee of the ORI.

Michael Aylward

Michael Aylward is a senior partner in the Boston office of Morrison Mahoney LLP where he chairs the firm's complex insurance claims resolution group. For nearly thirty years, Michael has represented insurers and reinsurers in coverage disputes around the country concerning the application of liability insurance policies to commercial claims involving intellectual property disputes, environmental and mass tort claims and construction defect litigation. He also consults frequently on bad faith and ethics disputes and has served as an arbitrator and testified as an expert in various matters involving coverage and reinsurance issues arising out of such claims.

In addition to his trial and appellate practice, Michael often testifies as an expert on insurance-related issues. He is also an AAA-certified neutral and has served as a party-appointed arbitrator in a number of large insurance disputes.

iii

The Order of Wig and Robe and The Order of the Coif, and served as

Student Works Editor of the South Carolina Law Review. Justice Few is

admitted to practice in South Carolina, the United States District Court for

the District of South Carolina, the United States Court of Appeals for the

Fourth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court.

Justice Few began his legal career as law clerk to The Honorable G.

Ross Anderson, Jr., United States District Judge. He practiced law in

Greenville from 1989 to 2000, and then served as a judge on the Circuit

Court of South Carolina for almost ten years. On February 3, 2010, he

became Chief Judge of the South Carolina Court of Appeals, a position he

held until February 2016, when he was elected to the South Carolina

Supreme Court.

Justice Few is a frequent public speaker. In 1996, he gave a speech

entitled "Citizen Participation in the Legal System," for which he was

awarded first place in the ABA's nationwide Edward R. Finch Law Day

speech contest. He has given numerous speeches to bar associations and

civic groups throughout the country, and has delivered commencement

addresses to the graduates of Lander University and the Charleston School

of Law, where he delivered "What it Means to be a Lawyer." His most

frequent speech is entitled "The Courage of a Lawyer," which he has

delivered to legal associations in South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia,

Florida, Arizona, and California, and which was published in the 2013

Winter edition of the ABA's Litigation journal.

Justice Few has served on the faculty of the National Judicial College in

Reno, Nevada, as Adjunct Professor of Law and later a Distinguished

Visiting Professor at the Charleston School of Law, and most recently as

Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of South Carolina School of Law.

He has also given or moderated over 125 continuing legal education

seminars in South Carolina and numerous other states.

Justice Few is a Fellow in Liberty Fellowship, and as a part of Liberty

Fellowship is currently undergoing moderator training through The Aspen

Institute. He completed the Diversity Leaders Initiative through The Riley

Institute at Furman University in 2010. In December 2012, the Charleston

School of Law awarded him the degree Doctor of Laws, honoris causa.

Justice Few is the proud father of daughters Reed and Anna, and son

Cannon.

The Order of Wig and Robe and The Order of the Coif, and served as Student Works Editor of the South Carolina Law Review. Justice Few is admitted to practice in South Carolina, the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court.

Justice Few began his legal career as law clerk to The Honorable G. Ross Anderson, Jr., United States District Judge. He practiced law in Greenville from 1989 to 2000, and then served as a judge on the Circuit Court of South Carolina for almost ten years. On February 3, 2010, he became Chief Judge of the South Carolina Court of Appeals, a position he held until February 2016, when he was elected to the South Carolina Supreme Court.

Justice Few is a frequent public speaker. In 1996, he gave a speech entitled "Citizen Participation in the Legal System," for which he was

awarded first place in the ABA's nationwide Edward R. Finch Law Day

speech contest. He has given numerous speeches to bar associations and civic groups throughout the country, and has delivered commencement addresses to the graduates of Lander University and the Charleston School of Law, where he delivered "What it Means to be a Lawyer." His most frequent speech is entitled "The Courage of a Lawyer," which he has delivered to legal associations in South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Arizona, and California, and which was published in the 2013 Winter edition of the ABA's Litigation journal.

Justice Few has served on the faculty of the National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada, as Adjunct Professor of Law and later a Distinguished Visiting Professor at the Charleston School of Law, and most recently as Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of South Carolina School of Law. He has also given or moderated over 125 continuing legal education seminars in South Carolina and numerous other states.

Justice Few is a Fellow in Liberty Fellowship, and as a part of Liberty Fellowship is currently undergoing moderator training through The Aspen Institute. He completed the Diversity Leaders Initiative through The Riley Institute at Furman University in 2010. In December 2012, the Charleston School of Law awarded him the degree Doctor of Laws, honoris causa.

Justice Few is the proud father of daughters Reed and Anna, and son Cannon.

v

I. Introduction: the judiciary is going electronic

Over the past 20 years, a shift from paper filing to electronic filing

has occurred in appellate courts across the United States, and the rate is

increasing. From 2010 to 2014, the number of state appellate courts

requiring or allowing e-filing increased from 15 to 33. ABA Council of

Appellate Lawyers, The Leap from E-Filing to E-Briefing at 3 (2017) ("CAL

Rpt."), http://www.americanbar.orp/content/dam/aba/administrative/

appellate lawyers/2017 cal ebrief report.authcheckdam.pdf. It is not a

stretch to expect that "all or nearly all jurisdictions will have appellate e-

filing within the decade." Id.

With the advent of e-filing has been the introduction of electronic-

document management, allowing judges and court staff to access

documents by computer instead of paper files. Currently, every federal

circuit court of appeals issues iPads to their judges (judges in the D.C.

Circuit may choose the tablet type), and over 50% of state appellate courts

do the same (usually iPad or Surface). CAL Rpt. at 8-11. See Tab A.

However, not every appellate judge uses them to read briefs. Surveys

show judges often read on a PC screen and in print when in the office. But

the number of judges reading on paper decreases each year. It seems

likely that nearly all judges and court staff will eventually read arguments

on screens, not paper.

What effect, if any, will the change in the way judges read legal

arguments have on the way attorneys present arguments in appellate

briefs and motions? Will legal writing have to change along with the

medium that is used to read it? Yes: If attorneys wish to effectively

communicate to the electronic reader, they must reassess how they write

and consider additional ways of communicating their arguments.

To support this conclusion, this article summarizes the results of

various studies by cognitive scientists, educators, and website designers

showing that screen readers read and retain differently than paper readers.

The article then proposes ways attorneys can structure legal arguments

and present them more effectively and persuasively to the screen reader,

and how to utilize the electronic tools available to them.

I The author wishes to thank Robert Dubose, partner in the Houston office of Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend, LLP, for his permission to use as a source for this paper his book, LEGAL WRITING FOR THE REWIRED BRAIN: PERSUADING READERS IN A PAPERLESS WORLD (ALM 2010) (cited as "Dubose").

Legal Writing in the Electronic Age

Page 1

I. Introduction: the judiciary is going electronic

Over the past 20 years, a shift from paper filing to electronic filing has occurred in appellate courts across the United States, and the rate is increasing. From 2010 to 2014, the number of state appellate courts requiring or allowing e-filing increased from 15 to 33. ABA Council of

Appellate Lawyers, The Leap from E-Filing to E-Briefing at 3 (2017) ("CAL

Rpt."), http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/ appellate lawyers/2017 cal ebrief report.authcheckdam.pdf. It is not a stretch to expect that "all or nearly all jurisdictions will have appellate e-

filing within the decade." Id.

With the advent of e-filing has been the introduction of electronic- document management, allowing judges and court staff to access

documents by computer instead of paper files. Currently, every federal

circuit court of appeals issues iPads to their judges Oudges in the D.C. Circuit may choose the tablet type), and over 50% of state appellate courts

do the same (usually iPad or Surface). CAL Rpt. at 8-11. See Tab A

However, not every appellate judge uses them to read briefs. Surveys show judges often read on a PC screen and in print when in the office. But the number of judges reading on paper decreases each year. It seems likely that nearly all judges and court staff will eventually read arguments on screens, not paper.

What effect, if any, will the change in the way judges read legal arguments have on the way attorneys present arguments in appellate briefs and motions? Will legal writing have to change along with the medium that is used to read it? Yes: If attorneys wish to effectively communicate to the electronic reader, they must reassess how they write and consider additional ways of communicating their arguments.

To support this conclusion, this article summarizes the results of various studies by cognitive scientists, educators, and website designers showing that screen readers read and retain differently than paper readers. The article then proposes ways attorneys can structure legal arguments and present them more effectively and persuasively to the screen reader, and how to utilize the electronic tools available to them. 1

(^1) The author wishes to thank Robert Dubose, partner in the Houston office of Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend, LLP, for his permission to use as a source for this paper his book, LEGAL WRITING FOR THE REWIRED BRAIN: PERSUADING READERS IN A PAPERLESS WORLD (ALM 2010) (cited as "Dubose").

Legal Writing in the Electronic Age

Page 1

1. Our electronic devices create an environment of distraction.

Back when lawyers read on paper at their office desk, they had a

limited amount of information immediately available to them: their papers,

client files, a few books, periodicals, and journals.

The amount of information lawyers now available in their offices is

virtually unlimited. As Mitch Kapor, the founder of Lotus, once said,

"Getting information off the Internet is like taking a drink from a fire hydrant."

When we sit at a computer, or carry a smart phone, tablet, or laptop, we

have a limitless supply of information.

And not only is the available information unlimited, it is always

available—the ever-present siren call leading us to us "check in." We are

never without our smart phones, and a tablet, laptop, or PC is almost

always within reach. These devices not only wake us up and tell us our

schedule for the day, they constantly communicate with us, distracting us

from our reading. Unless the "notifications" function is turned off, we can

potentially receive interruptions from (1) social media (Twitter, Facebook,

Instagram, Snapchat, GroupMe, SoundCloud, Houseparty), (2)

subscriptions (newsmagazines, bank and credit-card activity, weather

updates, Uber and Lyft, news alerts), and (3) other messages (calendar

alters, Amber alerts, software updates). The distractions are endless.

The result? Our electronic readers do not have the same focus and

sustained attention as our readers had 25 years ago. As technology writer

John Freeman concludes, our readers "work in the most distraction-prone

workplace in the history of mankind." JOHN FREEMAN, THE TYRANNY OF E-

MAIL: THE FOUR-THOUSAND-YEAR JOURNEY TO YOUR INBOX 140 (2009).

2. Readers expect information instantly.

Like our paper readers in the bookstore lounge, reading in the past

was a process of discovery that required time (and quietness) to find

information. Now, search engines like Google, Yahoo, Safari, Westlaw,

and LEXIS have trained readers to expect information quickly. Searching

is relatively easy—it requires very little thinking or time to find information.

See Nicholas Carr, Is Google Making Us Stupid?, The Atlantic (July/August

2008), http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google.

Because readers have become so accustomed to quickly obtaining

information electronically, many now also expect to extract information

from written documents, including legal filings, with the same ease and

speed. When readers now approach a document, they expect to locate the

necessary information in it as quickly and easily as they locate information

through an Internet search. ROBERT DUBOSE, LEGAL WRITING FOR THE

REWIRED Brain: PERSUADING READERS IN A PAPERLESS WORLD 22 (2010).

1. Our electronic devices create an environment of distraction.

Back when lawyers read on paper at their office desk, they had a limited amount of information immediately available to them: their papers, client files, a few books, periodicals, and journals.

The amount of information lawyers now available in their offices is virtually unlimited. As Mitch Kaper, the founder of Lotus, once said, "Getting information off the Internet is like taking a drink from a fire hydrant." When we sit at a computer, or carry a smart phone, tablet, or laptop, we have a limitless supply of information.

And not only is the available information unlimited, it is always

available-the ever-present siren call leading us to us "check in." We are never without our smart phones, and a tablet, laptop, or PC is almost always within reach. These devices not only wake us up and tell us our schedule for the day, they constantly communicate with us, distracting us from our reading. Unless the "notifications" function is turned off, we can potentially receive interruptions from (1) social media (Twitter, Facebook, lnstagram, Snapchat, GroupMe, SoundCloud, Houseparty), (2) subscriptions (newsmagazines, bank and credit-card activity, weather updates, Uber and Lyft, news alerts), and (3) other messages (calendar alters, Amber alerts, software updates). The distractions are endless.

The result? Our electronic readers do not have the same focus and sustained attention as our readers had 25 years ago. As technology writer John Freeman concludes, our readers "work in the most distraction-prone workplace in the history of mankind." JOHN FREEMAN, THE TYRANNY OF E- MAIL: THE FOUR-THOUSAND-YEAR JOURNEY TO YOUR INBOX 140 (2009).

2. Readers expect information instantly.

Like our paper readers in the bookstore lounge, reading in the past was a process of discovery that required time (and quietness) to find information. Now, search engines like Google, Yahoo, Safari, Westlaw, and LEXIS have trained readers to expect information quickly. Searching is relatively easy-it requires very little thinking or time to find information.

See Nicholas Carr, Is Google Making Us Stupid?, The Atlantic (July/August

2008), http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807 /google.

Because readers have become so accustomed to quickly obtaining information electronically, many now also expect to extract information from written documents, including legal filings, with the same ease and speed. When readers now approach a document, they expect to locate the necessary information in it as quickly and easily as they locate information through an Internet search. ROBERT DUBOSE, LEGAL WRITING FOR THE REWIRED Brain: PERSUADING READERS IN A PAPERLESS WORLD 22 (2010).

3. Because screen reading is more challenging, readers tend to

skim screen text.

Studies have shown that screens are more difficult to read than

paper. See infra Section B.1. When we read word-for-word, we read 10 to

30 percent more slowly on screens than paper. Sri H. Kurniawan &

Panayiotis Zaphiris, Reading Online or on Paper: Which is Faster? (Aug.

2001), http://users.soe.ucsc.edu/-srikur/files/HCII readino.pdf.

Why is this so? Technology writer John Freeman suggests the

difference has to do with light. Freeman at 15. He notes that the human

eye evolved to see the world by reflected light—it is not designed to look

directly at a light source. Thus, we see most of the world using reflected

light. An electronic device presents a relatively new exception. A computer

screen shines light directly into our eyes. Id. It dries the eyes, increases

blink rate, and creates headaches. Id.

It is therefore unsurprising that readers compensate for this more

challenging reading environment by skimming screen text to more quickly

gather information. Dubose at 40-41.

4. Multiple Window screens fosters multitasking.

The Windows-type operating system of course enables users to run

more than one program at one time. Id. at 24-26. Today, most computer

devices enable multitasking, turning readers into multitaskers as they move

from one window to another. This ability is further enhanced by large

screens or the use of multiple monitors at the office.

Yet, as with the constant electronic notifications, multiple windows

compete for our attention and disrupt our concentration.

Freeman says multitaskers are capable of rote, mechanical tasks,

but their performance declines in higher areas of thought, such as memory

and learning. Freeman at 141. A Stanford University study found that

people who are regularly bombarded with several streams of electronic

information have a lower attention span, less memory control, or cannot

switch between jobs as well as those who tackle one task at a time. Adam

Gorlick, Media Multitaskers Pay Mental Price, Stanford Study Shows,

Stanford University News (Aug. 24, 2009), http://news.stanford.edu/

2009/08/24/mu Ititask-resea rch-studv-082409/.

Multitasking actually slows our thinking because it "forces us to chop

competing tasks into pieces, set them in different piles, then hunt for the

pile we're interested in, pick up its pieces, review the rules for putting the

pieces back together, and then attempt to do so, often quite awkwardly."

Walter Kim, The Autumn of the Multitaskers, The Atlantic (November

3. Because screen reading is more challenging, readers tend to

skim screen text.

Studies have shown that screens are more difficult to read than paper. See infra Section 8.1. When we read word-for-word, we read 10 to 30 percent more slowly on screens than paper. Sri H. Kurniawan & Panayiotis Zaphiris, Reading Online or on Paper: Which is Faster? (Aug. 2001 ), http://users.soe.ucsc.edu/-srikur/files/HCll reading.pdf.

Why is this so? Technology writer John Freeman suggests the difference has to do with light. Freeman at 15. He notes that the human eye evolved to see the world by reflected light-it is not designed to look directly at a light source. Thus, we see most of the world using reflected light. An electronic device presents a relatively new exception. A computer screen shines light directly into our eyes. Id. It dries the eyes, increases blink rate, and creates headaches. Id.

It is therefore unsurprising that readers compensate for this more challenging reading environment by skimming screen text to more quickly gather information. Dubose at 40-41.

4. Multiple Window screens fosters multitasking.

The Windows-type operating system of course enables users to run more than one program at one time. Id. at 24-26. Today, most computer devices enable multitasking, turning readers into multitaskers as they move from one window to another. This ability is further enhanced by large screens or the use of multiple monitors at the office.

Yet, as with the constant electronic notifications, multiple windows compete for our attention and disrupt our concentration.

Freeman says multitaskers are capable of rote, mechanical tasks, but their performance declines in higher areas of thought, such as memory and learning. Freeman at 141. A Stanford University study found that people who are regularly bombarded with several streams of electronic information have a lower attention span, less memory control, or cannot switch between jobs as well as those who tackle one task at a time. Adam Garlick, Media Multitaskers Pay Mental Price, Stanford Study Shows, Stanford University News (Aug. 24, 2009), http://news.stanford.edu/ 2009/08/24/multitask-research-study-082409/.

Multitasking actually slows our thinking because it "forces us to chop competing tasks into pieces, set them in different piles, then hunt for the pile we're interested in, pick up its pieces, review the rules for putting the pieces back together, and then attempt to do so, often quite awkwardly." Walter Kirn, The Autumn of the Multitaskers, The Atlantic (November