BEFORE
"Now the author of another scientific article is Ian Sampling, science editor of the Guardian online news. Ian interviewed Bevil Conway, researcher at MIT, and he found something quite interesting. "Women and older people were more likely to see the dress as white and gold. The same group are more likely to be larks, being awake in sunlight hours, rather than owls, who were awake more at night time" said Conway in the interview. In this same interview, he argues that our brains either discount the blue or white chromatic bias in the photo, and people who are exposed to more natural daytime light are more used to discounting blue bias, and therefore see the dress as white and gold. Conversely, people who stay up late and are used to darker light have more experience discounting the lighter side of chromatic bias and see the dress as blue and black. "
AFTER
The author of another article is Ian Sampling, editor of the Guardian. Ian interviewed Bevil Conway, researcher at MIT, and found something interesting. "Women and older people were more likely to see the dress as white and gold. The same group are more likely to be larks, being awake in sunlight hours, rather than owls, who were awake more at night time" said Conway. He adds that the brain either discounts the blue or white chromatic bias, and people who are exposed to more natural daytime light are used to discounting blue bias, and see the dress as white and gold. Conversely, people who are used to darker light have more experience discounting the white side, and see blue and black.
The re-written section is better in that it is more concise and easily understood but I also think that it is easier to understand the details of the story when all of the words are there. My audience will stay better captured with the revised paragraph, but at what cost to understanding? Well, cost to understanding is probably minimal, but I do fear a decrease in my credibility in some places.
No comments:
Post a Comment