![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Active fl editors, a question for you:
It seems like I'm seeing -- or maybe it's just noticing -- more long sections of text in italics on fanlore pages, especially in the "recs and reviews" type sections of fanworks pages, or in other quoted material, such as on writer style, etc.
In "Writing for the Web" stuff, I used to be taught that on-screen (prior to paper-mimicking screens like the current e-readers have), italics are noticeably harder on the eyes to read than in print, and that on webpages limiting the use of italicized text to several words or a line or two at most was important to prevent eye fatigue.
(And to try to prevent the reader losing focus on the page entirely and skimming or just clicking away. Ditto, re eye-tracking studies and page fatigue, paragraphs longer than 4-6 lines and/or too many longer paragraphs not interspersed with 1-2 line paragraphs on a page of online text.)
I know I've italicized what felt like too much text myself on fanlore quite a few times -- and I am very guilty of long sentences, paragraphs, and text -- trying to figure out what the informal house style seemed to be.
But looking at a page side-by-side where smaller parts are italicized (e.g., the words "Author's Summary:" rather than the entire summary, a few words in a review instead of all of a review) vs. a page where larger chunks of text are italicized, I notice my eyes are more willing to read all or most of the text in the fewer-italics page.
So I'm wondering (well partly, if the difference I discern is just habit (or tired eyes) of mine)
- if there's a lot of italicized text on fanlore pages because the old notions about italics and eye-fatigue in online reading have long since been rebutted by accessibility and eye-tracking research folks and I shouldn't worry about it*
- if we're italicizing a lot of text out of habit without thinking about how it affects the readability of a page
- (other options)?
And if it should be the case that most of the italicizing has happened out of habit and online readability guidelines are still in favor of fewer italics, would active editors be willing to consider reducing the amount/length of italicized text they use in new pages they create?
*If yes, I would love links to current studies!
It seems like I'm seeing -- or maybe it's just noticing -- more long sections of text in italics on fanlore pages, especially in the "recs and reviews" type sections of fanworks pages, or in other quoted material, such as on writer style, etc.
In "Writing for the Web" stuff, I used to be taught that on-screen (prior to paper-mimicking screens like the current e-readers have), italics are noticeably harder on the eyes to read than in print, and that on webpages limiting the use of italicized text to several words or a line or two at most was important to prevent eye fatigue.
(And to try to prevent the reader losing focus on the page entirely and skimming or just clicking away. Ditto, re eye-tracking studies and page fatigue, paragraphs longer than 4-6 lines and/or too many longer paragraphs not interspersed with 1-2 line paragraphs on a page of online text.)
I know I've italicized what felt like too much text myself on fanlore quite a few times -- and I am very guilty of long sentences, paragraphs, and text -- trying to figure out what the informal house style seemed to be.
But looking at a page side-by-side where smaller parts are italicized (e.g., the words "Author's Summary:" rather than the entire summary, a few words in a review instead of all of a review) vs. a page where larger chunks of text are italicized, I notice my eyes are more willing to read all or most of the text in the fewer-italics page.
So I'm wondering (well partly, if the difference I discern is just habit (or tired eyes) of mine)
- if there's a lot of italicized text on fanlore pages because the old notions about italics and eye-fatigue in online reading have long since been rebutted by accessibility and eye-tracking research folks and I shouldn't worry about it*
- if we're italicizing a lot of text out of habit without thinking about how it affects the readability of a page
- (other options)?
And if it should be the case that most of the italicizing has happened out of habit and online readability guidelines are still in favor of fewer italics, would active editors be willing to consider reducing the amount/length of italicized text they use in new pages they create?
*If yes, I would love links to current studies!
no subject
When I started editing I was glad that there were no complicated formatting guidelines and hoped more experienced editors would just fix it if I made mistakes, and I think it should stay that way for new people. We could have accessibility guidelines somewhere, but I don't know where the best place would be so experienced editors would find them, but new people wouldn't be intimidated.
no subject
Hmmm, I dunno, maybe we could see if there's a good place (even on one of the "making a new page" or "new editor" oriented pages?) to say something like (but phrased better):
"Optional: If you'd like to make a new page that you're creating (or text you're adding to a page) easier for page visitors to read, you may want to consider:
- for online reading, shorter paragraphs work better than longer ones
- more than a very few lines in a row of text in italics is hard on the eyes in online reading.
If you'd like, you can use the wiki-markup for indents, line-items, the html < blockquote > tag or fanlore's Quotation templates to make quoted text stand out; see page x for more info on these options."
And then on page x (or section x of page y) add info/point to example pages where we use those, including frogspace's no-spacing tips to make the Quotation(2) template look good. Or something.