The Usability Wars: Chicago vs. MLA

 
Since my focus in this blog is usability and topics directly and tangentially related to that field, and I'm studying the finer points of technical editing, I think it's high time that I write about the usability of the two editing guides that I’m using in my editing work: The Chicago Manual of Style and the MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing.

(image source)

VS.

(image source)

Despite its intimidating size (and hefty weight!), The Chicago Manual of Style is, in my humble opinion, much more usable than the MLA guide.  Here's why:

• Text Density: Many sections of the MLA manual are quite long and span several pages, forcing the reader to go read through (or scan, as the case may be) some lengthy passages to find an answer to a specific question.  In contrast, Chicago's text is divided into small, tightly focused sections that cover a single topic. Each of these sections is numbered, which brings me to my next point... 
• Organization of Material: Because Chicago's text is broken up into many small parts, readers can easily look things up and find the information that addresses their concerns.  The short sections also  allow readers to quickly read the appropriate text once they have found it. 
• Number of Examples: While MLA does offer illustrative examples to make its explanations more easily understood, Chicago offers many more, and each example tends to illustrate a distinct scenario mentioned in the text.
• Font Used for Examples: In Chicago, examples are usually set in a font that can be easily differentiated from that of the main text.  The main text is in a serif typeface (Scala), and examples are typically set in a sans-serif one (Scala Sans).  However, in the MLA manual, all text is set in a font that looks like Times New Roman, with the letters in the example text spaced out a little more than in the main text.

In case you're unfamiliar with these guides and how they're used, MLA is commonly used when writing about the humanities, and while Chicago can also be used in those disciplines, it is most often used in historical research and the sciences.  Could it be, then, that the writers of the MLA guide assumed that their readers, who are likely to be extremely well read and not averse to reading long passages, wouldn't object to the layout and organization of the guide?  Or is it an issue of volume?  That is, does the sheer size of The Chicago Manual of Style (956 pages, compared to MLA's 336) demand brief and focused sections?

Have you used either or both of these guides?  Share your thoughts on their usability below.

Do You Suffer From Grammarphobia?

 
For school, I've been reviewing the basics of grammar (punctuation, the definitions of the various verb tenses, etc.).  During my downtime, I sometimes read the material posted by others online in the form of comments and blog posts.  As I reflect on the both of these types of reading, I can't help but wonder if most people block out the grammar lessons of their schooldays, as if they were traumatic, psychologically scarring events.

Don't get me wrong: I'm still learning the finer, technical aspects of grammar, myself, and I make mistakes just like everyone else.  But I've seen the work of many people who don't seem to know what the differences are between commas and periods.  And don't even get me started on apostrophes.

 

(possible symptom of grammarphobia)

(image source)

I know you might be thinking, "Well, you don't know if English is their first language."  That's definitely a fair argument, but I've made the same observations about people whose native language is definitely English.  There has to be another explanation.

In an attempt to get closer to the root of the problem, I reflected on my earliest experiences with learning the ins and outs of sentence structure, punctuation, and the like.  I'm certain I was in grammar school (haha), though I'm not sure of the exact year when I began to become acquainted with grammar.  I do know, however, that I was diagramming sentences in eighth-grade English class.  I also know that I was one of the few people who actually enjoyed it.

I, being the word nerd (and pretty much a nerd all around), loved the idea of pulling a sentence apart and seeing "how it worked."  I thought it was cool to see all the different branches come out of a diagram of a seemingly uncomplicated sentence.  Most of my classmates, however, saw little point in such exercises and moaned that diagramming sentences was "stupid."  Thankfully, none of them had any aspirations to write for a living.

So here are my questions: do most people cringe at the thought of putting together a grammatically sentence because of the "boring," "pointless," or "overly complicated" nature of it?  Or have they truly forgotten how?  I tend to think that part of the problem is attitudinal, but I also think that grammar-related lessons should be included in the standard curriculum during high school years as well as during grammar and middle school.

What do you think?  Do you think a significant portion of the adult population suffers from grammarphobia?  Or would it be more accurately described as apathy?  Discuss by leaving a comment.