Comments on: Cites & Insights 9:4 (March 2009) now available http://walt.lishost.org/2009/02/cites-insights-94-march-2009-now-available/ The library voice of the radical middle. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 16:45:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: walt http://walt.lishost.org/2009/02/cites-insights-94-march-2009-now-available/comment-page-1/#comment-35948 walt Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:44:23 +0000 http://walt.lishost.org/?p=1071#comment-35948 Joe, I don't know if you're new to Cites & Insights or if you're just fond of kicking gift horses in the teeth, but: Cites & Insights is designed <i>as a print publication,</i> distributed via the web. At the request of several readers, I'm providing HTML versions of most essays--but the HTML is absolutely, 100%, deliberately an afterthought. Done the only trivially-easy way I know how, which means switching Word templates and writing out filtered HTML. (Suggestions for various tools and workstreams I could use to generate prettier HTML output not accepted unless you can demonstrate that it would take me less than half an hour per issue to do that, at no cost for new software or platforms.) So my answer's simple: If you find it unreadable <b>don't read it.</b> I'm reasonably proud of the typography and layout for Cites & Insights itself, but the HTML version is <b>an afterthought.</b> I do appreciate the nature of the wording, though: It clarifies your interest in a constructive discussion. "Atrocious" is such a nice opening point. Joe, I don’t know if you’re new to Cites & Insights or if you’re just fond of kicking gift horses in the teeth, but:

Cites & Insights is designed as a print publication, distributed via the web.

At the request of several readers, I’m providing HTML versions of most essays–but the HTML is absolutely, 100%, deliberately an afterthought. Done the only trivially-easy way I know how, which means switching Word templates and writing out filtered HTML. (Suggestions for various tools and workstreams I could use to generate prettier HTML output not accepted unless you can demonstrate that it would take me less than half an hour per issue to do that, at no cost for new software or platforms.)

So my answer’s simple: If you find it unreadable don’t read it. I’m reasonably proud of the typography and layout for Cites & Insights itself, but the HTML version is an afterthought.

I do appreciate the nature of the wording, though: It clarifies your interest in a constructive discussion. “Atrocious” is such a nice opening point.

]]> By: Joe Clark http://walt.lishost.org/2009/02/cites-insights-94-march-2009-now-available/comment-page-1/#comment-35946 Joe Clark Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:33:11 +0000 http://walt.lishost.org/?p=1071#comment-35946 It’s “not as readable” because your typography is atrocious. Wall-to-wall Palatino with almost zero whitespace and not enough lead makes for unreadable copy. It’s “not as readable” because your typography is atrocious. Wall-to-wall Palatino with almost zero whitespace and not enough lead makes for unreadable copy.

]]>