PhilW wrote: ↑18:24 Tue 21 Dec 2021Dislike for Minion here; I generally find text printed/displayed in fonts where parts of the letter are very thin are much less readable (less of an issue in italic and bold variants, since the finest part of the line tends not to be so fine). Serif fonts often have more line width variation within each letter form than sans-serif, and Minion looks to be a particularly thin minimum-width variant; more stylish but less readable; I prefer readable.
jdaw1 wrote: ↑00:02 Tue 21 Dec 2021Also, the ‘new evidence marker’, ►, is too dominant. I am considering replacing it with a unicode Rightwards Triple Arrow, ⇛︎.
Larger: ⇛︎
Glenn E. wrote: ↑01:05 Wed 22 Dec 2021
I do not find ► to be too dominant, and in fact find ⇛︎ to be insufficiently dominant.
For me, ◉ and ◆ are equally suitable, though I do still prefer ►.
In rough agreement with Glenn; I prefer the bullets, though don't mind any of those suggested (or a standard bullet i.e. simple filled circle with no outer ring), and find ⇛︎ to be too weak, missing clarity as a marker. Perhaps you could reduce the size of the bullet slightly to decrease dominance sufficiently?
jdaw1 wrote: ↑00:02 Tue 21 Dec 2021Also, the ‘new evidence marker’, ►, is too dominant. I am considering replacing it with a unicode Rightwards Triple Arrow, ⇛︎.
Larger: ⇛︎
M.Charlton wrote: ↑00:39 Tue 21 Dec 2021I think that the proposed ‘new evidence marker’ is particularly preferable to the evidence marker used in the first edition.
Michael: so far, the majority is against this change. Please say more about your reasoning.
(It isn’t actually a vote, except in the sense that I get 1 whole vote and everybody else gets 10⁻⁹ votes, but my vote will be made whilst heeding wise opinions received.)
PhilW wrote: ↑18:24 Tue 21 Dec 2021Dislike for Minion here; I generally find text printed/displayed in fonts where parts of the letter are very thin are much less readable (less of an issue in italic and bold variants, since the finest part of the line tends not to be so fine). Serif fonts often have more line width variation within each letter form than sans-serif, and Minion looks to be a particularly thin minimum-width variant; more stylish but less readable; I prefer readable.
Noted. Please suggest better.
I was and am perfectly happy with the original Times New Roman.
PhilW wrote: ↑18:24 Tue 21 Dec 2021Dislike for Minion here; I generally find text printed/displayed in fonts where parts of the letter are very thin are much less readable (less of an issue in italic and bold variants, since the finest part of the line tends not to be so fine). Serif fonts often have more line width variation within each letter form than sans-serif, and Minion looks to be a particularly thin minimum-width variant; more stylish but less readable; I prefer readable.
Noted. Please suggest better.
I was and am perfectly happy with the original Times New Roman.
+1
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
A suggestion - when considering identifiers/markers for entries in the shipper chapters perhaps have different markers that enable the reader to easily identify:
>> entries that are unchanged from Edition 1
>> entries that have been improved
>> new entries
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
DRT wrote: ↑23:10 Wed 22 Dec 2021>> entries that are unchanged from Edition 1
>> entries that have been improved
>> new entries
I’m rejecting this for several reasons.
• Nobody remembers the book well enough to need paragraph-by-paragraph ‘is this changed’.
• Multiple paragraphs have already been changed. It would be lots of work to identify all.
• What happens with edition 3? Separate symbols for 1➝︎2 changes and 2➝︎3 changes?
DRT wrote: ↑23:10 Wed 22 Dec 2021>> entries that are unchanged from Edition 1
>> entries that have been improved
>> new entries
I’m rejecting this for several reasons.
• Nobody remembers the book well enough to need paragraph-by-paragraph ‘is this changed’.
• Multiple paragraphs have already been changed. It would be lots of work to identify all.
• What happens with edition 3? Separate symbols for 1➝︎2 changes and 2➝︎3 changes?
If this suggested geekiness is a step too far down the road of geekiness then so be it.
But loyal patrons might enjoy being able to quickly identify the enhancements and additions without having to compare page-by-page.
Perhaps worth considering that your likely biggest market is those who already have Edition 1?
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
The best, but most tedious addition (traditionally) would be the inclusion of a master index - where every subject title and proper noun gets page referenced.
Indexing used to be the curse chore of the junior in publishing houses, but I suspect there's some clever technology out there today that can make it far less challenging..
I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly - W.S. Churchill
jdaw1 wrote: ↑00:02 Tue 21 Dec 2021Also, the ‘new evidence marker’, ►, is too dominant. I am considering replacing it with a unicode Rightwards Triple Arrow, ⇛︎.
Larger: ⇛︎
M.Charlton wrote: ↑00:39 Tue 21 Dec 2021I think that the proposed ‘new evidence marker’ is particularly preferable to the evidence marker used in the first edition.
Michael: so far, the majority is against this change. Please say more about your reasoning.
(It isn’t actually a vote, except in the sense that I get 1 whole vote and everybody else gets 10⁻⁹ votes, but my vote will be made whilst heeding wise opinions received.)
My rationale is that I find the new evidence marker much more aesthetically pleasing, without diminishing its role in highlighting relevant information. To my mind, the first edition marker dominates the page too much (particularly so given the liberal, and most welcome, use of evidence), making it somewhat distracting.
Re Baskerville - I’m a fan, and see no compelling reason to change.
uncle tom wrote: ↑22:41 Thu 23 Dec 2021The best, but most tedious addition (traditionally) would be the inclusion of a master index - where every subject title and proper noun gets page referenced.
What for? What have you sought and been unable to find?
uncle tom wrote: ↑22:41 Thu 23 Dec 2021The best, but most tedious addition (traditionally) would be the inclusion of a master index - where every subject title and proper noun gets page referenced.
What for? What have you sought and been unable to find?
New question. The Royal Oporto chapter is a jumble of brands, some of them being de facto synonyms of RO.
But Hooper, aka Richard Richard Hooper & Sons, had a separate life until it was bought in 1951. Should it be separated into its own chapter, Hooper? Or is it too minor to have its own chapter?
With even less enthusiasm, mutatis mutandis, Guedes?
I think both Hooper and Guedes deserve their own chapter... a slightly more difficult question is what you do with wines from the post-merger vintages. Do you know if they tended to continue to make the wines from the same vineyards as before? I have a vague recollection that that was the case with Hooper. If so it would make sense to continue to list them separately. But if they became pure brands then that dictates not.
An experiment as just been done that should have been done before asking the question. A quick duplicate-and-delete reveals that:
• A Hooper chapter would be six or seven pages;
• A Guedes chapter would likely be only one page, at most spilling onto the top part of a second page.
⟹︎ Hooper ✔; Guedes ✘ ?
If you agree with that, does Guedes remain in RO, or become another small part of Other Shippers?
Should the cut-off be measured in pages or known vintages? You might have scant information on 20 vintages that takes up 3 pages, or a few interesting stories on 5 vintages that take up 5 pages/ Which is more worthy of a chapter in a book that aims to tell us "Who declared what?"
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
