Theory-Oriented Headlines Inelegant - Sinker
― the pinefox, Thursday, 27 January 2022 00:06 (two years ago) link
hook line -sinker
― Ár an broc a mhic (darraghmac), Thursday, 27 January 2022 00:42 (two years ago) link
not really on topic, but i've got a load of work to do today, including finishing writing an important document. so right now the most urgent thing is resolving the following question:
which combination of fonts and colours for title, subtitle and headers is the best lay out for a document, in this case a word document.
― Fizzles, Sunday, 6 February 2022 10:34 (two years ago) link
Colours?
Slightly surprised that you'd vary colours, but maybe I shouldn't be. You'd know best.
Is the issue here, Fizzles, about appealing to, or holding the attention of, a very particular audience?
― the pinefox, Sunday, 6 February 2022 10:47 (two years ago) link
it is partly, pinefox.
house style is a v light san serif with calibri body, which isn't compelling as a set of headers tbh, though it can work. in that vein, colours can help mark out the document as a 'house' production, however, i must admit it's partly to draw the attention to people more used to slides than reading documents that HERE IS A NEW SECTION.
the audience point - senior management in a company i work for, the seniority indicating lower-than-common cognitive function and attention span.
― Fizzles, Sunday, 6 February 2022 11:12 (two years ago) link
so i've been faffing around with fonts (obv because easier than finishing the content), and have decided i don't want the exact house style (*another* work document), and something different would be striking and help attract attention.
― Fizzles, Sunday, 6 February 2022 11:13 (two years ago) link
and after all, attractively laid out reports and analyses can be easier to digest.
― Fizzles, Sunday, 6 February 2022 11:16 (two years ago) link
no chance of getting in a consultant for it I suppose
― Ár an broc a mhic (darraghmac), Sunday, 6 February 2022 11:48 (two years ago) link
no, i feel that right now rather than doing any more writing the most important thing is for me and me alone to sort out the fonts.
― Fizzles, Sunday, 6 February 2022 11:53 (two years ago) link
fuckit i need to set a two-hour timer and switch off all distractions. break first though, sitting here not actually doing anything to the document is quite tiring.
― Fizzles, Sunday, 6 February 2022 11:59 (two years ago) link
What happened?
― the pinefox, Monday, 7 February 2022 13:53 (two years ago) link
comic sans, the letters dancing, each a different colour, is what i heard
― mark s, Monday, 7 February 2022 13:54 (two years ago) link
If were are interviewing someone who uses the plural personal pronoun 'they', would it be correct or acceptable to still use the singular personal pronoun 'me' when reproducing their direct speech?
― Ward Fowler, Monday, 7 February 2022 14:11 (two years ago) link
they is singular so yes
― towards fungal computer (harbl), Monday, 7 February 2022 14:16 (two years ago) link
When did the comma go away before "Jr."?
― Tapioca Tumbril (James Redd and the Blecchs), Tuesday, 8 February 2022 22:13 (two years ago) link
Asking for a friend.
― Ferryboat Bill Jr. (James Redd and the Blecchs), Tuesday, 8 February 2022 22:14 (two years ago) link
ap style, perhaps
― mookieproof, Tuesday, 8 February 2022 22:14 (two years ago) link
No commas for Jr., III or even Inc.
AP tries to keep them out of attorney firm names too.
― pplains, Tuesday, 8 February 2022 22:56 (two years ago) link
they don't like , inc. either, which is important to the inc.s
― towards fungal computer (harbl), Tuesday, 8 February 2022 23:50 (two years ago) link
ap otm, these commas are fussy and needless imo
― mark s, Wednesday, 9 February 2022 11:24 (two years ago) link
Dinosaur, Junior
― imam and apple pie (Ye Mad Puffin), Wednesday, 9 February 2022 14:21 (two years ago) link
even Chicago says no comma for Jr.
― rob, Wednesday, 9 February 2022 14:41 (two years ago) link
― Fizzles, Wednesday, 9 February 2022 15:58 (two years ago) link
The main principle I use is that the hierarchy of the information should be obvious at a glance even to someone who's not familiar with the topic. I frequently write and edit technical documents that have three and four (and sometimes even five) levels of heading.
Groceries Produce Fruit Vegetables Onions Beverages Beer Wine Bread Products Bagels English muffins
Some folks use outline numbering (like 1.1, 1.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.2.1, etc.), which can be helpful in formal contexts. Old-school outlining designations like I.A.2.iii can be even fussier. But for some purposes and for some audiences it seems fussy. The human brain can only hold so much hierarchical information at once, and if you get down to something like "please see section III.B.5.xxiv on page 157," your eyes just glaze over.
Me, even if we are required to use a numbering scheme, I strive for page designs that instantly communicate what's the main topic, what's a subtopic, and so on. So like the first level of heading will be somewhat larger than the body copy, bold, and often have a thin horizontal rule under it. The second level will smaller than the first but still bold, with no line under it. The third level might be italicized and about the same size as the body copy.
I regularly argue for simplifying levels so that you don't get absurdities like
1.0 Groceries 1.1 Produce 1.1.1 Vegetables 1.1.1.1 Root vegetables 1.1.1.1.1 Onions 1.1.1.1.1 Red onions
― imam and apple pie (Ye Mad Puffin), Thursday, 10 February 2022 13:35 (two years ago) link
i think that makes sense, Mad Puffin. The document more or less structures itself tbh, as it’s a strategy document, so it follows a fairly standard external, internal, strategy, execution and financials structure, with sub divisions for people and technology to put it in v general terms. but none of this helps with the critical question of *which colours* and *which fonts*. unless that is flashing comic sans ofc.
― Fizzles, Thursday, 10 February 2022 15:39 (two years ago) link
Calibri is a pretty decent humanized sans serif imo. It is a good, fresh display typeface (headings, captions, etc.). I don't love reading long blocks of copy in it, but I should say that my own taste is pretty old-fashioned.
My design sensibilities date from about 1986 and are steeped in traditional newspaper and magazine production. I'd still be using Optima and Garamond and Palatino if I could get away with it.
In documents that are being shared around in an Office environment, you will not want to choose anything nonstandard that would require your coworkers to install a font.
― imam and apple pie (Ye Mad Puffin), Thursday, 10 February 2022 15:49 (two years ago) link
no indeed. it has to be one of the standard word sets. no fancy hoefler designs, sadly. (tho crazily for a while our house style *was* a google open font, high meant if you hadn’t downloaded it the document wd appear v differently!)
― Fizzles, Thursday, 10 February 2022 15:55 (two years ago) link
My usual template when I'm not required to use a specific house style is probably something like:
Heading 1: Calibri 18, bold, flush left, in dark teal (RGB 0 51 102), half-point bottom border (probably black but I might get fancy and make the line also that same dark teal)
Body text: TNR 12, black, single spaced, 6 pts space after paragraph
Heading 2: Calibri 14, bold, black, flush left
Heading 3 if needed is TNR 12 bold italic, black, flush left
First-level bullet is round and black, indented 0 but with a hanging indent of .13 in (sorry not sorry, I think in inches)
Second-level is an en dash, indented .13 and hanging indent of .13
― imam and apple pie (Ye Mad Puffin), Thursday, 10 February 2022 16:09 (two years ago) link
I think the result is clean and unfussy and strikes the right balance of modern and dignified, but your document may vary
― imam and apple pie (Ye Mad Puffin), Thursday, 10 February 2022 16:13 (two years ago) link
excellent! thank you!
― Fizzles, Thursday, 10 February 2022 16:37 (two years ago) link
I am surprised and impressed at anyone choosing to use TNR. I have a massive typecase full of 12-pt TNR and I printed something with it once. I had to throw it away. It's a classic and I do not like to look at it.
― Tim, Thursday, 10 February 2022 17:00 (two years ago) link
I have customers who require it!
― imam and apple pie (Ye Mad Puffin), Thursday, 10 February 2022 17:18 (two years ago) link
Colm Tóibín, LRB 27.1.2022, p.23:
I know it didn't happen only because I once asked McGahern about it - who, with some satisfaction, assured me that it was pure fiction.
If writing it, I'd probably have written:
I know it didn't happen only because I once asked McGahern about it, and with some satisfaction he assured me that it was pure fiction.
― the pinefox, Sunday, 13 February 2022 17:38 (two years ago) link
It's a classic and I do not like to look at it.― Tim, Thursday, February 10, 2022
― Tim, Thursday, February 10, 2022
Great sentence.
― the pinefox, Sunday, 13 February 2022 17:40 (two years ago) link
but to refer to "it" why wouldn't you select the relative pronoun "which"? otherwise -- by the same (i think incorrect) logic -- doesn't "he" in yr rewrite would also refer to "it"?
in fact "who" -- bcz as a relative pronoun it refers to a person not a thing -- *has* to refer to mcgahern
i don't think toibin's is an especially great sentence: the dash seems, well, slapdash -- but a comma (tho correct) wd make the whole thing a moutfhul…
better might be to turn it into two sentences:
I know it didn't happen only because I once asked McGahern about it. He, with some satisfaction, assured me that it was pure fiction.
― mark s, Sunday, 13 February 2022 18:01 (two years ago) link
Indeed, "who" can't refer to "it", and isn't supposed to. I'm not for a moment saying that CT means it to. I just suggest that the structure of his sentence is bad because it implies this logic.
"I once asked Mark S about his piano, who told me that he had written an article about it for The Wire".
No.
"I once asked Mark S about his piano, and he told me that he had written an article about it for The Wire".
― the pinefox, Sunday, 13 February 2022 18:37 (two years ago) link
no dash, bracket everything after dash, no commas in brackets
― Ár an broc a mhic (darraghmac), Sunday, 13 February 2022 18:40 (two years ago) link
i wouldn't read the sentence you propose and assume the piano had thoughts to be honest pinefox
― Reader, I buried him (Noodle Vague), Sunday, 13 February 2022 18:42 (two years ago) link
like surely there's a space for general inference?
i think pf's point is that this level of fine dining the structure shdn't even be giving readers reason to giggle unkindly -- it's less that the meaning can fairly be taken wrong (it can't), and more that unfair ppl have been given a very brief beat within the structure where they can imagine themselves poking fun, and a less slack writer wouldn't give them this leeway
― mark s, Sunday, 13 February 2022 19:01 (two years ago) link
I don't think this is quite correct as a sentence.
It depends on how one measures correctness. Tóibín employs more than one clue to guide his reader to the interpretation he wishes them to make.
First, the referent of "it" is not a person, but an event. A "who" is a much better fit for a person, while a "which" is a much better fit for an event. This is a very distinct fingerpost pointing toward McGahern as the intended "who". Next, he separates "it" from "who" with a dash, which is an informal method of punctuation in this situation, implying a greater implied distance between them, as if he were purposely telling the reader not to connect them. Lastly, his tone is informal and conversational, so the application of strict editorial formality is inapt.
― more difficult than I look (Aimless), Sunday, 13 February 2022 20:11 (two years ago) link
lol yeah we got this aimless
― mark s, Sunday, 13 February 2022 20:19 (two years ago) link
That's uncalled for, is no-one else allowed to join in this discussion?
― joni mitchell jarre (anagram), Sunday, 13 February 2022 22:21 (two years ago) link
he was just broadcasting his merriment at... something
― more difficult than I look (Aimless), Sunday, 13 February 2022 22:30 (two years ago) link
I once asked Mark S about his piano, who had written an article about it for The Wire.
I once asked Mark S about his sister, who had written an article about it for The Wire.
― the pinefox, Monday, 14 February 2022 11:33 (two years ago) link
What could “it” refer to in the second sentence, or am I missing the point?
― Alba, Monday, 14 February 2022 15:52 (two years ago) link
Anyway, I suppose I see sentence structure as a means to the end of comprehension, rather than a set of unbreakable Latin-like rules. It being a dash rather than a comma does make a difference, I think.
― Alba, Monday, 14 February 2022 15:56 (two years ago) link
x-post: it me
― mark s, Monday, 14 February 2022 15:57 (two years ago) link
Alba: in the 2nd sentence it would have to refer to an object previously named.
I admit that this, possibly, makes the two sentences less directly comparable than they might otherwise seem.
Nonetheless, I think that the two sentences together may do something to demonstrate how bad the first one is.
It is very often possible to decipher the intended meaning of a sentence, even if the sentence is bad, but this doesn't mean the sentence is good, or should be allowed into print by editors.
― the pinefox, Monday, 14 February 2022 17:09 (two years ago) link
“Decipher” implies difficulty though. I don’t think there was any difficulty.
― Alba, Monday, 14 February 2022 17:29 (two years ago) link