Charles Gilman wrote on Wed, Oct 8, 2008 06:20 AM UTC:
Thank you for your feedback. I should have said that first time, as I
always welcome constructive criticism. Taking your points in turn:
Plain English: where do you draw the line? I am one of the most fervent
denouncers of nonsense-terminology such as 'hippogonal', and have
responded to past criticism of 'triagonal'. Only so much can be said
without resorting to some kind of jargon, though - would you consider
'diagonal' to be jargon or plain English? It is true that I tend to
define a word only on its first appearance in the entire series, or at
most on the first few pages where it appears. Would repeating it on every
page where it appears be better, or might it engender a 'here we go
again' attitude? What do other readers think?
Movement diagrams: these take up a lot of space in two senses, and are
more suited to single-piece pages - which where they exist are accessible
on links on the first mention in each article. A large number on one page
might prove even more bewildering. Curiously enough I was wondering
whether a series of pages on single symmetric 3d pieces
('Cubiclopedia'?) might be useful. Your first comment swayed me against
that idea, but if you think that it would help, let me know. I have
devised a system of 3d movement diagrams especially.
Incredibly convoluted: I can see your point as regards the later pages.
As the series progressed the pieces per page increase as they get more
obscure, but it was that or have many more pages. I wanted to balance
comprehensive coverage with detail suited to each piece's likely
usefulness. There could be a better balance but I have yet to find one.
Using 'your names for their pieces': Well they might have no names of
their own for pieces. That was what drew me to these pages, a desire to
find out names for variant pieces and especially 3d ones. Conversely they
may want to use particularly names as part of a theme but not be able to
devise their own original pieces to fit them. Not all of them are my names
anyway. Names traceable and attributed to other recent contributors include
Arrow (06, Fergus Duniho), Buffalo (07, Jean-Louis Cazuax), Echidna (16,
Timothy Newton), Falcon (13, George Duke - who routinely quotes my own
piece names), Fox and Wolf (13, Tim Stiles), Gold and Silver dragons (11,
Jared McComb), Harvester and Reaper (13, Ralph Betza), Kangaroo (08,
Timothy Newton), Network/Reporter/Scientist/Spy/University (15, Gavin
Smith) and Waffle (06, Ralph Betza). Alibaba (06) I suspect is Betza but
have yet to confirm! Indeed I have often invited others to better those
names of my devising with which I am not entirely happy.
Thank you for your feedback. I should have said that first time, as I always welcome constructive criticism. Taking your points in turn: Plain English: where do you draw the line? I am one of the most fervent denouncers of nonsense-terminology such as 'hippogonal', and have responded to past criticism of 'triagonal'. Only so much can be said without resorting to some kind of jargon, though - would you consider 'diagonal' to be jargon or plain English? It is true that I tend to define a word only on its first appearance in the entire series, or at most on the first few pages where it appears. Would repeating it on every page where it appears be better, or might it engender a 'here we go again' attitude? What do other readers think? Movement diagrams: these take up a lot of space in two senses, and are more suited to single-piece pages - which where they exist are accessible on links on the first mention in each article. A large number on one page might prove even more bewildering. Curiously enough I was wondering whether a series of pages on single symmetric 3d pieces ('Cubiclopedia'?) might be useful. Your first comment swayed me against that idea, but if you think that it would help, let me know. I have devised a system of 3d movement diagrams especially. Incredibly convoluted: I can see your point as regards the later pages. As the series progressed the pieces per page increase as they get more obscure, but it was that or have many more pages. I wanted to balance comprehensive coverage with detail suited to each piece's likely usefulness. There could be a better balance but I have yet to find one. Using 'your names for their pieces': Well they might have no names of their own for pieces. That was what drew me to these pages, a desire to find out names for variant pieces and especially 3d ones. Conversely they may want to use particularly names as part of a theme but not be able to devise their own original pieces to fit them. Not all of them are my names anyway. Names traceable and attributed to other recent contributors include Arrow (06, Fergus Duniho), Buffalo (07, Jean-Louis Cazuax), Echidna (16, Timothy Newton), Falcon (13, George Duke - who routinely quotes my own piece names), Fox and Wolf (13, Tim Stiles), Gold and Silver dragons (11, Jared McComb), Harvester and Reaper (13, Ralph Betza), Kangaroo (08, Timothy Newton), Network/Reporter/Scientist/Spy/University (15, Gavin Smith) and Waffle (06, Ralph Betza). Alibaba (06) I suspect is Betza but have yet to confirm! Indeed I have often invited others to better those names of my devising with which I am not entirely happy.