Is Simplified more environmentally friendly than Traditional?

[li3wei1]

Apologies if this is in the wrong forum. Also I should point out that there is no political/ideological slant behind this, I'm just intellectually curious.

 

Somebody discovered that you could use 15-20% less toner/ink and retain legibility simply by putting 'holes' in the middle of letters. .

 

So I thought, how much less ink does a page of simplified characters use than a page of traditional? Or are there complicating factors that equalize things?

 

I realize that saving 20% of your toner cartridge isn't exactly going to get all the polar bears back on the icebergs, but every little bit helps, and when you consider the amount of stuff printed in Chinese every day, it adds up. Anyone with any statistics, feel free to pitch in here.

 

I'm also aware that with the trend towards on-screen reading, it may have the opposite effect. Normally charactes will be black on white, i.e the background will be lighted pixels and the characters will bit unlit, so less ink=more energy. Not sure how significant this is.

 

Could simplified characters also allow smaller print sizes, thus allowing more characters per page, and saving paper?

 

Like I said, I'm not poltically invested in this, I'm just curious. Any information or thoughts welcome.

 

 

[Hofmann]

Yes. My sloppy analysis is as follows:

 

I reduced the size of the following images to 1x1, and measured the gray level.

 

Traditional was 233, and Simplified was 235. Simplified uses 0.9% less ink.

[Shelley]

Interesting ideas. From my limited knowledge of traditional or as I was taught full form and its comparison with simplified there are not as many differences as one may be led to believe.

 

AFAIK it has mainly been changes to radicals to simplified forms. I know there are other changes, but as my experience with spotting the differences to ascertain if something is full form or simplified I have noticed you just need to scan for one or two radicals and see what form they are in.

 

I am not sure there would be a huge difference in the amount of ink used in one form or the other. Probably save more ink by printing at 80% or even 75% of full black.

[MPhillips]

While we're at it we ought to do away with serifs! Serifs waste ink, sans-serif typefaces only!

[roddy]

What's the minimum readable size you can use the two fonts at? Might be some extra savings there. 

[Shelley]

This will change with age, years ago I could deal with 9 or maybe even 8 point but now to stop eyestrain I use 14 ( yes I am old ) and sometimes even bigger if I want to scan quickly.

[oceancalligraphy]

For Chinese characters I need the font size to be 12 or larger, 14 or larger on the computer, or else some parts end up so squished together that I cannot read the character at all.

Side note: I originally read the title as "is Simplified learning environment more friendly than Traditional". Not sure what that says about my English reading ability or my sensitivity to the simplified vs traditional characters debate. Some serious case of 眼殘 (eye damage) and 腦補 (mentally adding things that are not there).

[Matty]

What's the minimum readable size you can use the two fonts at? Might be some extra savings there. 

 

You can print stuff quite small, I've not test with Chinese but back in Aus I printed a 32 page doc to 16 pages per face of an A4 sheet of paper.

 

I found it quite convenient to have a 32 page university study manual on 1 A4 sheet of paper I could fold up and put in my pocket.

 

I guess that's a 97% saving on paper and ink. Maybe a little less since I added borders to each page to make it clearer to separate them.

[imron]

I definitely find that simplified is easier to read at smaller font sizes.

[Basil]

 

--

I found it quite convenient to have a 32 page university study manual on 1 A4 sheet of paper I could fold up and put in my pocket.

 

Pic of the huge magnifying glass you had stowed in the other pocket needed...

[Matty]

Pic of the huge magnifying glass you had stowed in the other pocket needed...

 

Didn't need one, was much more readable than even I expected. I still have that sheet of paper to this day, because it humours me.

[Ruben von Zwack]

Jst mgn ll th tnr nd nk w wld sv f lnggs wth ltn lphbts lft t th vwls!

[Shelley]

Hehe Ruben von Zwack

 

I think I would rather spend my money on ink than headache pills