I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Donald Kline, whose expertise, understanding, and patience, added considerably to my graduate experience. I appreciate his vast knowledge and skill in many areas (., vision, aging, ethics, interaction with participants), and his assistance in writing reports (., grant proposals, scholarship applications and this thesis), which have on occasion made me "GREEN" with envy. I would like to thank the other members of my committee, Dr. Bob Dewar, and Dr. Chris Sears for the assistance they provided at all levels of the research project. Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Ron Wardell from the Faculty of Environmental Design for taking time out from his busy schedule to serve as my external reader. A very special thanks goes out to Dr. Thomy Nilsson, without whose motivation and encouragement I would not have considered a graduate career in psychological research. Dr. Nilsson is the one professor/teacher who truly made a difference in my life. It was under his tutelage that I developed a focus and became interested in vision and human factors. He provided me with direction, technical support and became more of a mentor and friend, than a professor. It was though his, persistence, understanding and kindness that I completed my undergraduate degree and was encouraged to apply for graduate training. I doubt that I will ever be able to convey my appreciation fully, but I owe him my eternal gratitude. I must also acknowledge Don Meeker of Meeker & Associates Inc. (Larchmont, New York) for his suggestions for, and provision of the font materials evaluated in this study. Appreciation also goes out to Sujeet Paul, Ivan Hoza and Jack Moxness of the Department of Psychologyís Technical Support Group for all of their computer and technical assistance throughout my graduate program, and to the office staff for all the instances in which their assistance helped me along the way. Thanks also goes out to those who provided me with statistical advice at times of critical need; Dr. Theresa Kline, Dr. Chip Scialfa, Dr. Lorne Sulsky, and Dr. Tak Fung. I would also like to thank my friends in the Vision and Aging Lab, particularly Lisa Lynk, for our philosophical debates, exchanges of knowledge, skills, and venting of frustration during my graduate program, which helped enrich the experience. I would also like to thank my family for the support they provided me through my entire life and in particular, I must acknowledge my wife and best friend, Nancy, without whose love, encouragement and editing assistance, I would not have finished this thesis. In conclusion, I recognize that this research would not have been possible without the financial assistance of NSERC (Kline), the University of Calgary Graduate Studies (Connolly), the Department of Psychology at the University of Calgary (Teaching Assistantships, Graduate Research Scholarships) and the Province of Alberta Graduate Scholarship fund (Connolly), and express my gratitude to those agencies.
Hooray for Anonymous who brings up the Escalating Expectations plberom. It’s horrific now. Reviewers seem to prefer mountains of crappy data over a few elegant, carefully chosen and expertly executed experiments that actually support the claims being made. LONG gone are the days when a 1-panel figure could stand alone, at least in my field. I tend to agree that peer review is flawed to the point of being almost useless, at least in my field (where no one signs reviews). It’s a complete crapshoot what 3 reviewers you get. How does that really represent science, especially if you’re writing on a project that crosses fields? Then you get one expert from each field, none of whom can evaluate the whole thing?And just one bad review out of 3 or 4 is enough to sink a paper now. How is that a good thing for science as a whole? Are we to assume that 1 bad review is the ‘right’ one, or is it more likely the 1 bad review just happens to be an idiot or deliberately trying to sink the paper?I also think conflicts of interest are a far bigger plberom than anyone wants to admit. So… do you think it’s usually better, if you get half-useful and half-idiotic reviews, to revise & go back to the same journal rather than go elsewhere? I have been at the mercy of my advisors’ decisions re: which journals and when to fight crappy reviews vs. go elsewhere, so I’m really curious about what you think.