|
09 Oct 11 - 11:46 AM (#3236224) Subject: BS: Is this readable? From: DrugCrazed I'm creating liner notes for someone, and I want to double check if they're readable by all. Here you go. The background is staying, but the font/colour are able to be changed easily. (If you also find any glaring errors in the details then feel free to shout up, most of the research was done on my phone while I was interwebless) |
|
09 Oct 11 - 12:01 PM (#3236230) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: Stilly River Sage My dyslexic eyes aren't happy with all of the activity on the screen. Between the Blackadder font, the busy background, and the white text, I'd suggest that one of those things change. Either lighten the background and make the text dark, darken the background and make the white text a little bigger, or change the font to a simple serif font. You sure you want this below the thread? It's more of a tech music question than BS. SRS |
|
09 Oct 11 - 12:01 PM (#3236231) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: McGrath of Harlow I'd find it a bit irritating with the white print vanishing into the white patches of background. |
|
09 Oct 11 - 12:07 PM (#3236236) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: Bert That's a PDF file. I never load PDF files because they are slow, the interface is clunky and I am reluctant to load other peoples files on my computer. Give me a different format and I'll be glad to take a look at it. |
|
09 Oct 11 - 12:09 PM (#3236240) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: GUEST,999 Ditto both SRS and McGofH. I did not finish reading all the song lyrics. I will if I can find someway to magnify the screen. Never hurts to have another set of eyes check for typos. |
|
09 Oct 11 - 12:47 PM (#3236263) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: katlaughing The background is pretty, but, for me, detracts from the lyrics and makes them difficult to read. I'm really good at copy-editing, so if you get something else up, I"d be happy to check it over. Thanks for sharing. kat |
|
09 Oct 11 - 12:50 PM (#3236264) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: Jeri 999: (Ctrl +) I'd say either lighten the background a LOT or lose it. It's a little bit worse than 'distracting', IMO. |
|
09 Oct 11 - 12:51 PM (#3236266) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: DrugCrazed I'll change the font to something else. I'll fix it in a couple of minutes, any suggestions? Bert, I can do it as gifs and stuff but it's easier to use pdfs, due to the page formatting. It also is openable by anyone for free, and there are good pdf readers out there (FoxIt I think is one?). |
|
09 Oct 11 - 12:58 PM (#3236268) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: McGrath of Harlow The font looks ok - maybe change its colour to something that doesn't blend in... |
|
09 Oct 11 - 01:30 PM (#3236283) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: DrugCrazed Oh I hate you Sheffield Uni so much. What's the point of having an online filestore if I can't actually access it? I've got another plan which is madness and involves stupid methods but in the meantime, grrrrrrrrrrr. Also, if you think it should go above the line then throw it up. I didn't think this was above the line material, but I have been known to be wrong several times on this front. |
|
09 Oct 11 - 03:45 PM (#3236344) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: Noreen A more 'normal' font would be easier to read, if you're determined to keep the distracting, busy background. I would suggest keeping the same size font all the way through- it starts at a reasonable, readable size but for some its such as 'Celtic Sea' it's unreadable without magnification. I would also like more info on where each song was sourced from. There is info for some but not all. |
|
09 Oct 11 - 03:50 PM (#3236349) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: GUEST,leeneia No, that is not readable. Take it from a person who loves to read. |
|
09 Oct 11 - 05:43 PM (#3236386) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: DrugCrazed So: Unified font size, and change the font. The info on the song's source is as much as I know, which songs don't have enough info? |
|
09 Oct 11 - 06:35 PM (#3236398) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: Stilly River Sage If people reading this PDF have Blackadder in their computers, then that's what they'll see. Most of this software is set up to load quickly by using your resident fonts, and if the computer doesn't have the one you used, the reader will see something substituted for it. If you set up a PDF to save the font to the file it is larger but your computer will then use that attached font to show the file. If you combine the layers and save this file as a GIF or jpg then it will be an image that the computer won't modify and viewers looking at the sample can see the font you've used there. This search on "decorative texts" will give you an idea why Blackadder isn't a great choice - it's too busy, too distracting. You want the reader to be able to read the words easily, so a serif font is probably your best choice. A search on elegant serif fonts shows you different looks. You probably have something similar to some of these in your font choices, or you can download a lot of fonts for free from some of the places that offer them. SRS |
|
09 Oct 11 - 07:00 PM (#3236410) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: Ross Campbell White (or light-coloured) text on a patterned background is nearly always hard to read. I have many LPs and CDs (and these were professionally produced) where copious amounts of lyrics or explanatory text just disappear. Also the fact that your background is made up of three fields I find distracting - repeated over 23 pages, it's just annoying. If you feel you have to have white on a dark background, a single shade from the blue or green range would probably work better, and a less florid font would help. |
|
09 Oct 11 - 07:09 PM (#3236417) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: Bainbo I'd take the opposite direction from SRS and suggest a sans serif font. Like the decorations on Blackadder, serifs can sometimes disappear into a busy background like that. I understand why you want to make it stylish and attractive, and on a plain field the Blackadder might be fine. But if, as you say, the background is staying, then legibility would take priority. Something like Tahoma or even boring old Helvetica - not very exciting, but practical. The notes themselves seem fine - chatty and informative enough for sleeve notes. I certainly can't help you with more information, but, if you don't mind, a few suggestions on style. Himself: folk-style should be hyphenated. Let Union Be:The construction of the first sentence might be better as: A song about enjoying company and drinking, as well as other events or A song about enjoying company, drinking and other events. Shiver Me Timbers: If, as I suspect, you're referring to the group led by George Hinchcliffe, it's called the Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain - no "National". Open Space:I don't understand the sentence Well, take that staus quo. If you're referring to the rock group, it should be capitalised: Status Quo. If you're not referring to the rock group, then the meaning's not clear at all. Shanty: I'd check the spelling of Sheffield Folk Choral. I suspect it should be Chorale, although groups have been known to spell their own names incorrectly before now! Good luck with it. |
|
09 Oct 11 - 07:36 PM (#3236424) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: Jack Campin I looked at the first image with that ghastly font in white and the frantic background and gave up. Didn't even try to take in any of the meaning. The one thing I did notice was that there were a lot of f's in it. If I came across across a CD packaged that way I'd just burn myself a ripped off copy from somewhere, since I'd never want to look at the sleeve. "Wired" magazine has a lot to answer for. |
|
09 Oct 11 - 08:36 PM (#3236450) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: GUEST,Jon I find the background very difficult and the change of font sizes infuriating. It may just about be readable to me but I'd be unlikely to be bothered to read it. |
|
09 Oct 11 - 09:35 PM (#3236471) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: Ebbie Hmmmm. I thought that maybe my difficulty with it was my cataracts- which are coming off this week (yay!). I didn't finish the lyrics. It appears, though, that other people are having the same problem. For me, the high-kickin' font is tiring. Reminds me of one of my sisters who writes like that, complete with circled dots on her i's. |
|
09 Oct 11 - 10:06 PM (#3236482) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: michaelr A decorative font like Blackadder should be used only for titles, not for text; and with a busy background like yours, a contrasting drop shadow is a must with any font. With Blackadder, the "I-O" in Canadee-I-O is undecipherable unless you already know the song. |
|
09 Oct 11 - 10:20 PM (#3236491) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: JohnInKansas 1. The link fails due to a "TODO" error, that prevents my browser from opening it. 2. The background is far too "bright" and overshadows the white text. 3. The font is far too ornate for legibility in continuous text. 4. I'd pass on buying the disk, if I had any interest in having the notes. Apply the KISS principle. John |
|
10 Oct 11 - 07:15 AM (#3236624) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: DrugCrazed "If I came across across a CD packaged that way I'd just burn myself a ripped off copy from somewhere, since I'd never want to look at the sleeve." As it's a mostly digital album with few physical copies (and the physical ones just have the cover and the track list), you'd have no choice but to do that ;-) @Bainbo: I don't mean the band no. Status quo to me has always been the usual way for something to be done. |
|
10 Oct 11 - 07:43 AM (#3236635) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: Bainbo Right, DrugCrazed, I see now what you're trying to say. But "status quo" doesn't mean quite what you suggest above. It means the existing situation, the way things are now. Although it's a fine distinction, that's what was confusing me. You're trying to convey that the album is kicking back against accepted practice, defying convention, aren't you? If you're happy to keep "status quo", that's up to you. If you want to be more precise, you might want to replace it with something like "convention", "predictability", "expectation" or something else. And this is probably just my preference, but I'd put a comma after "take that". |
|
10 Oct 11 - 08:01 AM (#3236642) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: DrugCrazed Hmmm, I see your point. Arguably, the way things are now is that the young singer/songwriter writes a song about his ex-girlfriend and sings it. Since it's an instrumental, it technically is against, but the fact I'm using the word technically means I should change it. |
|
10 Oct 11 - 12:24 PM (#3236795) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: DrugCrazed I've fixed the font (the original link will also point to the fixed font version). I'm just looking at which colour to use, but I don't know whether the simple font change makes it much easier to read. When I've done a new colour I'll post a link. |
|
10 Oct 11 - 02:07 PM (#3236862) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: Dave the Gnome Currently using Firefox through a mobile broadband connection wiith 3 (Damn you BT) I waited about 30 seconds - the limit of mmy patience - and nothing at all appeared but the black background. So, no, to me it wasn't readable:-( Sorry DtG |
|
10 Oct 11 - 02:08 PM (#3236864) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: Dave the Gnome Same connection with IE seemd fine BTW. D. |
|
10 Oct 11 - 03:13 PM (#3236912) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: fat B****rd Much better IMO, DrugCrazed. |
|
10 Oct 11 - 03:21 PM (#3236915) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: GUEST,Jon I still find the background a bit distracting but the font change has made it much easier for me to read. |
|
10 Oct 11 - 04:16 PM (#3236938) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: Bainbo I hope your pal appreciates the amount of hard work you're putting in to this, DrugCrazed, and that you get a few shandies out of this. And I think the fact that that you had to ask whether it was legible suggests that you already suspected the answer! That font works much better. I know it's not as fancy, but it's legible most of the time. There are still points, however, where it starts to disappear. White on yellow is never really going to work well, but as the other colours in the background are dark, you probably wouldn't get away with a dark font colour, either. I do appreciate the problem you've got. The only suggestion I can make is to use a darker colour for the text and fade the background, or put a semi-transparent panel behind the text. But it's coming together well. Oh, one more thing I've just spotted - Sheffield Folk Choral appears again on the final page, rather than Chorale. |
|
10 Oct 11 - 04:31 PM (#3236946) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: Bainbo Another solution which I've seen used is to stick with the white text until it comes up against a bit of yellow, and then change it to dark. It's not a technique I really like, though, as it can mean changing colour halfway through a line, and sometimes even mid-word, and can be pretty distracting. The key function of page design like this is to lead a reader through the text easily - and the key characteristic is that it doesn't look like it's been designed. So many magazines now have "show-off" graphics that you just have to give up on reading because it becomes too difficult. |
|
10 Oct 11 - 04:39 PM (#3236955) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: Jim Dixon It looks like the background is the same on every page. I don't see the point of repeating it so many times. If you're in love with the background, fine, but I'd recommend using it only once on the cover--where I assume you'll be using a bigger type font, and use a white background and black type on the rest of the booklet. |
|
10 Oct 11 - 05:06 PM (#3236961) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: DrugCrazed Aye Bainbo, I realised it had Choral on the back as I was walking home and I've not been on the web since then to fix it. I'm giving in, and I'll have a green and black background with white text. If I can work out how to. Be back in about 10 minutes. |
|
10 Oct 11 - 05:06 PM (#3236962) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: DrugCrazed And why I'm not admitting this is my album I really don't know. |
|
10 Oct 11 - 05:30 PM (#3236969) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: DrugCrazed Right, done. Feel free to peruse, and this time you get the album cover as well. |
|
11 Oct 11 - 11:21 AM (#3237221) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: Bainbo That is so much better. And, as I was saying, it doesn't even look like it's been designed, despite the amount of work that's gone into it. It's just that I thought you were irrevocably commited to the multi-coloured artwork as background. Looks like you'll have to buy yourself a shandy in appreciation! |
|
11 Oct 11 - 12:11 PM (#3237247) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: Jack Campin That's a huge improvement. |
|
11 Oct 11 - 02:37 PM (#3237325) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: Ross Campbell Much better. The only glitch I spotted - "theSheffield" with no space on the penultimate page. Ross |
|
11 Oct 11 - 04:01 PM (#3237371) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: Dave the Gnome Got broadband back but still couldn't open it :-( Looks like i didn't have a PDF viewer with my Firefox installation - How odd! Anyway - downloaded one and I can read it now. D. |
|
11 Oct 11 - 07:14 PM (#3237482) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: Big Al Whittle looks okay to me - but I couldn't see anything wrong to start off with. |
|
12 Oct 11 - 02:33 AM (#3237615) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity I could read it. GfS |
|
12 Oct 11 - 03:30 AM (#3237633) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: DrugCrazed @Big Al: If you didn't look at the earlier versions then you won't have seen anything, since I overwrote them. |
|
28 Oct 11 - 11:57 AM (#3246140) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: DrugCrazed I've been asked to see how people read "Why 'home album' rather than 'studio album'? Because that implies that real craftsmanship went into this." I meant it as my home album hasn't the quality of the studio. People's thoughts? |
|
28 Oct 11 - 12:23 PM (#3246146) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: Ebbie "Why 'home album' rather than 'studio album'? Because that implies that real craftsmanship went into this." "I meant it as my home album hasn't the quality of the studio. People's thoughts? I read that as "Because that (acknowledges) that (no) real craftsmanship went into this." Is that what you meant to say? I enjoyed reading all the songs. With the changes you have made - and with my cataracts gone - it was an easy read. |
|
29 Oct 11 - 09:04 AM (#3246615) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: YorkshireYankee Perhaps a better "test" of what people think it means would occur if you did not mention what you meant it to mean? (Know what I mean? ;-) ) |
|
29 Oct 11 - 10:05 AM (#3246654) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: GUEST,blogward You need more space between the titles and the body text. The body text font is too big for the page - you have to scroll for the whole song - and it should be left justified, not centre. It's having to scroll makes it hard to read. The cover/rear cover font and the body text font don't match in any way (eg the slanted 'e' crossbars) - instead of Blackadder use the cover font for titles, maybe. |
|
29 Oct 11 - 12:00 PM (#3246713) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: YorkshireYankee Guest, Blogward -- afraid you're looking at an old version which has been superceded; DC hasn't posted the newer version yet. (BTW, the new version does have more space between titles and text.) |
|
29 Oct 11 - 11:08 PM (#3246810) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: Donuel IF you are using photoshop, You could experiment with other fonts or just use the stroke feature which is found by clicking on the layer with your typing . set the color to black and the size to 1 pixel. Sometimes drop shadow feature or bevel makes the letters pop with more clarity. |
|
30 Oct 11 - 04:20 AM (#3246850) Subject: RE: BS: Is this readable? From: DrugCrazed As Yankee says, that's an old version created with powerpoint. Ms Yankee has made it look a lot prettier, and if I could upload the new version I would but I've just woken up and I need some caffeine, a shower and need to get to a rehearsal. @Blogward - That's a font I don't own. The cover artist has it, and she's a photoshop user who has more fonts than I care to think about. |