Editing for Design: The Happy Meeting of Editing and Creativity

 
In an earlier post, I talked about how the primary principles, support principles, and elements of design can be analyzed in a creative visual work.  Here, I will discuss how those same concepts can be applied in the editing of printed documents and web pages, creating a compelling intersection between art and practicality.

Here's a list of the aforementioned aspects of design:

PRIMARY PRINCIPLES

• Unity
• Hierarchy
• Variety
• Proportion

SECONDARY PRINCIPLES

• Scale
• Balance
• Rhythm
• Repetition
• Economy
• Proximity

ELEMENTS OF DESIGN

• Shape
• Space
• Line
• Size
• Color
• Texture
• Typography

(image source)

(How many principles of design can you identify in this set of way-finding icons?  What sorts of edits would you make, if any?)

Some of these ideas overlap, and some are more applicable to our current discussion than others.  Specifically, the following questions should be asked by both designers and editors when creating or analyzing documents on paper and the web:

Unity: Do all the aspects of the work toward the same purpose, or are some of them "at odds" with each other?

Hierarchy: Are elements of the image or document arranged in such a way that suggests that they should be interpreted in a certain sequence?  Is that sequence intended by the creator?

Scale: If diagrams or figures are used, is there a point of comparison to a known scale (such as a human scale) provided?

Balance: Is any asymmetry that appears in the work's layout intentional?

Rhythm: Do the elements promote reader/viewer eye movement in a desired manner and direction?

Color: Do the colors used convey the emotions intended by the creator?

Texture: Do the textures used in the images have the dramatic and aesthetic effects that the creator intended? Will the intended textures be perceivable in the work's medium? Do the textures used obscure the meaning of the image or document?

Prior to my work in usability and design, I had never given much thought to the overlap between aesthetics and usability/practicality.  I'd be interested on hearing your theories about why this intersection exists.

The Usability Wars: Chicago vs. MLA

 
Since my focus in this blog is usability and topics directly and tangentially related to that field, and I'm studying the finer points of technical editing, I think it's high time that I write about the usability of the two editing guides that I’m using in my editing work: The Chicago Manual of Style and the MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing.

(image source)

VS.

(image source)

Despite its intimidating size (and hefty weight!), The Chicago Manual of Style is, in my humble opinion, much more usable than the MLA guide.  Here's why:

• Text Density: Many sections of the MLA manual are quite long and span several pages, forcing the reader to go read through (or scan, as the case may be) some lengthy passages to find an answer to a specific question.  In contrast, Chicago's text is divided into small, tightly focused sections that cover a single topic. Each of these sections is numbered, which brings me to my next point... 
• Organization of Material: Because Chicago's text is broken up into many small parts, readers can easily look things up and find the information that addresses their concerns.  The short sections also  allow readers to quickly read the appropriate text once they have found it. 
• Number of Examples: While MLA does offer illustrative examples to make its explanations more easily understood, Chicago offers many more, and each example tends to illustrate a distinct scenario mentioned in the text.
• Font Used for Examples: In Chicago, examples are usually set in a font that can be easily differentiated from that of the main text.  The main text is in a serif typeface (Scala), and examples are typically set in a sans-serif one (Scala Sans).  However, in the MLA manual, all text is set in a font that looks like Times New Roman, with the letters in the example text spaced out a little more than in the main text.

In case you're unfamiliar with these guides and how they're used, MLA is commonly used when writing about the humanities, and while Chicago can also be used in those disciplines, it is most often used in historical research and the sciences.  Could it be, then, that the writers of the MLA guide assumed that their readers, who are likely to be extremely well read and not averse to reading long passages, wouldn't object to the layout and organization of the guide?  Or is it an issue of volume?  That is, does the sheer size of The Chicago Manual of Style (956 pages, compared to MLA's 336) demand brief and focused sections?

Have you used either or both of these guides?  Share your thoughts on their usability below.