<p>Does anyone know of any evidence to indicate whether it is faster and/or easier for a native English speaker to recognise digits (1, 2, 3, 4) vs. full written English word equivalents (one, two, three, four)?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-17T11:37:46.230Z
I agree entirely. However, I need to support my argument with some kind of evidence. I can't believe there's nothing peer-reviewed out there, I'm just not sure I'm using the correct terms when looking. Incidentally, in this instance I'm only working with the numbers 1 - 4 (or one to four!).
HaydnW
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-17T12:04:14.630Z
@Robusto: I could, but a sample size of one person from the internet isn't particularly scientific compared to a properly conducted test (no disrespect to Dan Bron!). I'll struggle to find anyone who says a mouse is larger than an elephant, whereas I do have two conflicting parties for the digits vs. numbers argument, and need to convince one side (I'm not bothered which) that they are in the minority.
HaydnW
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-17T15:19:19.490Z
Thanks all. This is actually about usability, and how quickly someone can process the information conveyed by these numbers. Essentially they are answers on a form, and I need people to complete the form as quickly and easily as possible. The style is entirely self-defined and arbitrary, so there is no style guide right or wrong. It really does come down to which can be processed more easily (and if we're being really picky, which the user _perceives_ to be processed more easily / quickly).
HaydnW
<writing>
Is it easier/faster to recognise digits or written words?
HaydnW
# Is it easier/faster to recognise digits or written words?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-08-17)

Does anyone know of any evidence to indicate whether it is faster and/or easier for a native English speaker to recognise digits (1, 2, 3, 4) vs. full written English word equivalents (one, two, three, four)?

**Tags:** writing

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I agree entirely. However, I need to support my argument with some kind of evidence. I can't believe there's nothing peer-reviewed out there, I'm just not sure I'm using the correct terms when looking. Incidentally, in this instance I'm only working with the numbers 1 - 4 (or one to four!).  
> **username_0**: @Robusto: I could, but a sample size of one person from the internet isn't particularly scientific compared to a properly conducted test (no disrespect to Dan Bron!). I'll struggle to find anyone who says a mouse is larger than an elephant, whereas I do have two conflicting parties for the digits vs. numbers argument, and need to convince one side (I'm not bothered which) that they are in the minority.  
> **username_0**: Thanks all. This is actually about usability, and how quickly someone can process the information conveyed by these numbers. Essentially they are answers on a form, and I need people to complete the form as quickly and easily as possible. The style is entirely self-defined and arbitrary, so there is no style guide right or wrong. It really does come down to which can be processed more easily (and if we're being really picky, which the user _perceives_ to be processed more easily / quickly).  

---

## 0 answers

