Operative RKB Writes regarding Dr. J’s recent post:

Dear Dr. J.: 

False premise: substantial numbers of government documents are printed with inkjets 

False minor premise: Of those documents printed on inkjet printers, the text to graphic ratio amounts for a significant possible reduction in ink. 

False sub premise: Government studies and resultant licensing/ legal challenges would be outweighed by savings due to ink. There are a number of other issues present, but the article shows a profound failure in understanding both printing and the way the government works. Most offices print with laser printers not ink, further so much ink is wasted in print head cleaning other inefficiencies it would be better to simply eliminate inkjets as a printing method and switch to lasers. 

Lastly, many fonts are chosen based on readability, Garamond is simply just not as readable as others because it is thinner and thus harder on the eyes and some fonts are mandated by law (sad but true). 

Best, Operative RBK

Dear RBK,

You raise some excellent points. As best Dr. J. could determine, the young man’s original paper, regarding potential cost savings for his school system, was more rigorously done. Indeed, he wrote the caveat that he was going to use toner and ink interchangeably. Furthermore his ‘price analysis’ included estimated costs of printing based on the school environment. The truth is, and Dr. J. stated this, that the proof is in the pudding. The next step is to pilot his proposal locally and see if there are any cost savings.

Now you are right, Garamond is harder on the eyes, Comic Sans should be banned, period.

With regard to the second paper. You are right, it makes far more assumptions, but it was an ‘invited paper’ meaning that the editors requested a follow up. So the peer review would be less rigorous as a consequence which is why invited articles should be taken with a grain of salt.

Thanks for writing in with your excellent points.

Dr. J.