Currently, en route control of high altitude flights between airports uses computer-augmented radar information available on the Plan View Display (PVD), Computer Readout Device (CRD), and flight information printed on Flight Progress Strips (PPSs). The EPS contains thirty-one fields that supplement data available on the PVD. While an aircraft is in a controller's sector, control instructions, changes to the flight plan, and other contacts with the aircraft are written on the corresponding strip. This report describes an experiment that compared the effects of using a standard-sized (1 5/16(inch) x 8 (inch)) FPS and an FPS reduced both in size (1 (inch) x 5 (inch)) and information on the performance and workload of controller teams. The teams, from Minneapolis ARTCC, controlled simulated air traffic in a mixed radar- environment. Overall, the 1 (inch) x 5 (inch) reduced strip yielded deficits in the control of nonradar flights but not radar flights. This was evidenced in subject matter experts' evaluation of nonradar separation, strip processing and board management, and, to a marginal extent, in the efficiency of traffic movement through the sector. The radar-side (R-side) controller's awareness was also rated lower when using the smaller strips. Interestingly, the controllers' evaluation of their own performance did not reflect a difference between smaller and normal-sized strips. This may help explain why controllers did not compensate for the smaller strips to any great extent. Only R-side controllers exhibited compensatory behaviors and reported increased workload. R-side controllers also pointed to the PVD more often. Although there was little compensatory activity, R-side Controllers thought workload was greater with smaller strips. R-side controllers also felt it was more effortful and more frustrating working with the 1 (inch) x 5 (inch) strips.