The Front
Reinvention—of a Sort
The Cites & Insights hiatus announced November 28, 2011, technically ended January 20, 2012, when Cites & Insights 12:1 (January-February 2012) appeared. By then, I was through with my landmark investigation into public library presence on social networks and almost through preparing the initial results (the book based on that survey, Successful Social Networking in Public Libraries, is already listed in ALA Editions’ catalog and available for preorder, although it’s just entered the editing stages and won’t be available for several months). My other 2012 book, The Librarian’s Guide to Micropublishing, was not only finished, it was actually for sale (in paperback, ebook form and, from Lulu, in a first-rate hardcover edition). While I take a break before working on future book ideas, I find that I want to continue C&I—at least for a while.
I’m still lacking sponsorship, and that’s an issue: It’s tempting to turn all creative energies toward things that do return some revenue, given our household’s general lack of earned income. I’m still wondering whether C&I’s effectiveness and influence have both faded away. I’ve had recent indications from a couple of unexpected sources that some library guy named Walt Crawford has had valuable things to day—but I wonder whether that guy was expected to disappear quietly into retirement some time ago. I really want to find funding for ongoing larger public library social network surveys and analysis, although without institutional affiliation I’m not sure how to proceed on that (suggestions and help welcome!). I’ve even indicated a willingness to sweeten the pot: If I had ongoing funding for “this stuff”—research and C&I combined—at an appropriate level, I’d change the C&I license, including all back issues, to BY (any use legal as long as attribution is provided) and I’d dedicate my pre-ALA Editions (I was going to say “pre-1992,” but my last G.K. Hall book came out in 1992) to the public domain.
Lack of funding for various ventures may influence what appears here. For example, there’s one story I’m starting to work on—and I’m wondering whether it’s salable to American Libraries or Library Journal in shortened, incomplete form, as opposed to being given away here in complete form. Meanwhile, it felt appropriate to refresh Cites & Insights.
I put up a SurveyMonkey survey for Cites & Insights readers but also did some thinking on my own. Based on survey results, I’ve done another survey specifically aimed at people who read the PDF version of Cites & Insights but do so online or on e-devices. Based on those results…well, see the last section of this essay.
First, the initial survey results, with text largely identical to a long post on Walt at Random.
Thanks again to the 39 people who responded to the first formal survey of Cites & Insights readers.
I have no real idea how many people actually read Cites & Insights on a semi-regular basis. Through February 29, 2011, only 406 have so far downloaded the first 2012 issue, so 39 could be almost 10% of the regular readership—but at the end of last year, every issue had been downloaded at least 635 times (not including the hiatus 2-pager), and all but one had been downloaded at least 727 times, so I’m inclined to think that 39 is about 5% of the core readership. At least I hope I still have 720+ core readers!
So what did I conclude from the results? Here’s a tabular dump of the complete results, followed by some notes.
|
How read? |
Print PDF |
HTML |
Onl. PDF |
Varies |
Total |
|
|
|
11 |
3 |
16 |
9 |
39 |
|
|
Read & Enjoy |
Always |
Usually |
Sometimes |
Never |
|
AU % |
|
Bibs & Blather: R |
19 |
15 |
5 |
0 |
39 |
87% |
|
B&B: E |
14 |
21 |
2 |
0 |
37 |
90% |
|
My Back Pages: R |
10 |
14 |
13 |
1 |
38 |
62% |
|
MBP: E |
6 |
22 |
8 |
1 |
37 |
72% |
|
Offtopic: E |
12 |
14 |
13 |
0 |
39 |
67% |
|
Offtop :E |
6 |
23 |
6 |
1 |
36 |
74% |
|
MiW: R |
15 |
14 |
7 |
1 |
37 |
74% |
|
MiW: E |
12 |
16 |
6 |
0 |
34 |
72% |
|
TQT: R |
19 |
16 |
3 |
1 |
39 |
90% |
|
TQT: E |
18 |
16 |
2 |
0 |
36 |
87% |
|
Language-related: R |
18 |
13 |
7 |
0 |
38 |
79% |
|
Language: E |
14 |
17 |
7 |
0 |
38 |
79% |
|
Blogging & social networks: |
20 |
12 |
5 |
0 |
37 |
82% |
|
Blog: E |
19 |
12 |
7 |
0 |
38 |
79% |
|
Policy-related: R |
14 |
18 |
7 |
0 |
39 |
82% |
|
Policy: E |
14 |
19 |
5 |
0 |
38 |
85% |
The second row is the responses to the first question: how do you read Cites & Insights?
To me, the most significant figure is the “3” for HTML. If that figure had been a lot higher, I might work a little more on the Word template I use for HTML versions of essays. Given that it’s only one-thirteenth of responses, it would be tempting to say “ah, the heck with it, who needs HTML?”—but even in 2012 so far, several essays have been viewed more than 200 times, and from the time I started doing them through 12/31/11, 369 of the essays had been viewed at least 1,000 times, with 227 viewed at least 2,000 times and 40 viewed at least 5,000 times—all in addition to issue views. So I’ll keep doing HTML, but I don’t plan to spend time making it prettier than it is.
I’ve abbreviated the questions. The first row of each pair is for readership [R], the second for enjoyment [E]. Abbreviations that aren’t obvious:
· Offtopic = Offtopic Perspectives, my old-movie mini-reviews.
· MiW = Making it Work, essays on librarianship.
· TQT = Trends & Quick Takes.
If you’re looking at my Diigo tag lists, I use the latter two abbreviations there as well (for now), although MiW has lots of subtopics (e.g. miw-balance).
The rightmost column, “AU%,” is the percentage of all respondents that answered “Always” or “Usually” for this question. Note “all respondents”: The divisor is always 39, even for Making it Work, where only 34 people responded to the “Enjoy?” question. I’m offering the most negative interpretation of the answers by using this larger divisor.
What I see, then, is that every one of these sections except My Back Pages is usually read by at least 2/3 of you (and MBP isn’t that far off); that—to my surprise—Making it Work is the least commonly-read of the serious sections (whatever Offtopic Perspectives may be, “serious” isn’t the right descriptor); and that most sections are read by most readers.
As for whether you enjoy the sections, I’m gratified that no section scored lower than 72% “always” or “usually” enjoyed. It’s interesting that My Back Pages and Making it Work are tied for lowest percentage here.
I’m not terribly surprised that, for “always enjoyed,” you’re a serious bunch: Offtopic Perspectives and My Back Pages are tied for last, with only six enthusiastic responses each—and most serious sections are clustered fairly closely near the top.
What will I do with those results? Not a whole lot, because they don’t suggest clear futures. I could downplay Making it Work, and that may happen as I’m not focusing on academic libraries—but I’m not likely to downplay language-related areas or policy any more than I already have.
I could put this another way, given plans I’d already started formulating. To wit:
That’s right. Bibs & Blather, My Back Pages, Trends & Quick Takes, Making it Work, Offtopic Perspective, The Zeitgeist (which I didn’t even bother to ask about), Interesting & Peculiar Products, Copyright Currents & Comments, Library Access to Scholarship, Old Media/New Media, even Perspective itself: All gone. Kaput. Finit. Which leads us to…
Some of the old section names never did work very well—Making it Work, for example, never clearly conveyed what “it” was. Others became less relevant over time. I looked at other magazines (I think of C&I as a web-distribued magazine more than anything else, although it’s singularly lacking in ads, clean page breaks and illustrations). I looked at some of the thousands of source items I’ve flagged for discussion. I looked at the banner itself.
The sections that follow are the current result of all that looking and the generally ambiguous results of the survey. This is all slightly in flux: New section names may emerge, some of these sections may never have content… For each section, I’ll note the old section or sections that might appear here and what might be covered. For now, there won’t be a direct replacement for Perspective; other section labels should handle both long (even full-issue) essays and shorter items and collections.
You’re reading it. Stuff about Cites & Insights, my books and the like. Primarily what used to be Bibs & Blather, my alternate name for Cites & Insights. When this section appears, it will almost always appear at…the front.
Snarky odds and ends, more snarky and even odder than the rest of Cites & Insights. What used to be My Back Pages, plus most of the “peculiar” from what used to be Interesting & Peculiar Products and maybe some other stuff. When this section appears, it will appear at (wait for it) the back.
Shorter pieces and pieces that don’t fit neatly anywhere else. This is likely to be one of the longest sections for a while, until I catch up with items tagged “TQT.” Which is an indication of what this is: What used to be Trends & Quick Takes, a name that had long since outgrown the “trend-oriented” label. When this section appears…oh, never mind.
And that’s it. Well, it could be (and in this issue almost is), but that would be silly even by my standards. Instead, there are four more sections based directly on the banner—and, for now, three more that I feel are needed.
Essays and collections of shorter items that relate primarily to libraries, library operations, library philosophy and the like. What used to be Making it Work.
Essays and collections of shorter items that relate primarily to issues of law and policy, including copyright, censorship (if I ever return to that), open access and the like. Replaces Copyright Currents and Comments, Library Access to Scholarship and more.
Essays and collections of shorter items that relate primarily to technology. Replaces Interesting & Peculiar Products but also portions of what used to be in Trends & Quick Takes. One odd consequence: Much as I love ampersands, there will be a lot fewer of them.
Essays and collections of shorter items that relate primarily to media, both physical and net-based. Replaces Offtopic Perspectives (old movie reviews aren’t going away), Old Media/New Media, aspects of Net Media and more. But see below…
And these three sections for ongoing foci that don’t fit very well into the sections above:
Essays and collections of shorter items that relate primarily to social networks. Note that I say “social networks,” not “social media”—so essays about blogging don’t belong here.
Essays and collections of shorter items that relate primarily to words—reading, writing, publishing, ebooks, blogging. This replaces Writing about Reading, Thinking about Blogging and more. It may turn out to be too ungainly. It might not.
Essays and collections of shorter items that appear to be directly at the intersection of one of the four primary areas (libraries, policy, technology and media). In some ways, the intersections are what Cites & Insights is all about. This section name may never get used (maybe The Middle will handle it all); we shall see.
I’ve been tweaking layout and typography throughout the last 11 years. There were two changes within Volume 11—and when I noted that there were changes but not what they were, either nobody noticed or nobody cared enough to identify the changes.
For the record, the first change was to activate vertical justification in the June/July 2011 issue—with the oddity that Microsoft Word apparently doesn’t apply vertical justification to the first page, at least not for a two-column layout. But the bottom of each column for the rest of that and more recent issues has ended at exactly the same point (I add blank paragraphs after the Masthead, since Word does attempt to vertically justify the final page and that can yield truly bizarre results.)
The second change, in August 2011, was kind of a reversion—but not really. After using Constantia as a body typeface throughout 2010 and for much of 2011, I switched back to an old favorite, a typeface created specifically for my alma mater and the only one I’ve ever purchased directly: Berkeley Oldstyle. But it’s not really a reversion because I had been using Berkeley Oldstyle Book (except for boldface, since there’s no bold version of Book), which is lighter than Berkeley itself. I’m now using Berkeley itself; Berkeley Book was a little too light for this purpose, although it’s great for books. (I finally found that Constantia was a little heavier than I wanted.)
Time for a change? I tried out every complete serif text typeface I own—something like 15 of them—using the same page of C&I and the same 11-on-13 (with indented quotes 10-on-12) I’ve been using. Several of the resulting pages were quite good. They varied widely in space requirements, which was no surprise, and if I’d chosen Palatino Linotype I might have changed to 11-on-14 or 10-on-13 (because Palatino “sets large,” having larger letters at a given type size than most typefaces).
In the end, after hours of comparisons, I decided to stick with Berkeley Oldstyle. Here’s what ITC has to say about the typeface—and apparently it isn’t precisely my alma mater’s typeface.
In 1937, a friend of Frederic Goudy’s asked the noted designer if he would draw a face for the exclusive use of the University of California Press at Berkeley. Goudy accepted the task gladly.
A little over a year later Goudy had produced the foundation for the new type family. He was pleased with his work; in fact, Goudy considered The University of California Old Style fonts to be among his favorite designs. Unfortunately for the graphic design community, the fonts remained the property of the university press and saw little use elsewhere.
In the early 1980s, ITC planned a revival of Goudy’s California Old Style design. Aaron Burns, then president of the company, called Tony Stan and asked him if he would be willing to take on the project. Stan was a world-class type designer who knew a great design project when he saw it. He was delighted at the opportunity, and work on ITC Berkeley Oldstyle commenced (the name was chosen to pay tribute to the revival’s inspiration). Stan completed the design in 1983.
Many Hints of Goudy
ITC Berkeley Oldstyle offers the flavor and dynamics of Goudy’s original University of California Old Style without being a slavish copy. In fact, a close look reveals hints of several other Goudy designs in play: Kennerly, Goudy Oldstyle, Deepdene, and even a touch of Booklet Oldstyle.
ITC Berkeley Oldstyle is characterized by its calligraphic weight stress, smooth weight transitions, classic x-height and ample ascenders and descenders. These traits work together to create high levels of character legibility and a text color that is light and inviting.
Frankly, if it had better kerning, I’d be tempted to use Californian FB. Here’s a paragraph in Berkeley Oldstyle followed by the same paragraph in Californian FB:
Some of the old section names never did work very well—Making it Work, for example, never really conveyed what “it” was. Others became less relevant over time. I looked at other magazines (I really think of C&I as an electronic magazine more than anything else, although it’s singularly lacking in ads, clean page breaks and illustrations). I looked at some of the thousands of source items I’ve flagged for discussion. I looked at the banner itself. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog and looks for Various AV Tests of Well-done Kerning.
Some of the old section names never did work very well—Making it Work, for example, never really conveyed what “it” was. Others became less relevant over time. I looked at other magazines (I really think of C&I as an electronic magazine more than anything else, although it’s singularly lacking in ads, clean page breaks and illustrations). I looked at some of the thousands of source items I’ve flagged for discussion. I looked at the banner itself. The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog and looks for Various AV Tests of Well-done Kerning.
Actually, “if it had any kerning” may be more apropos. While Californian has nice aspects, the apparent total lack of kerning ruins it for me. So Berkeley Oldstyle it is… Looking at the ITC info on this typeface, I see there’s now a “Pro” version—OpenType designs that include the option of non-lining numbers (one of my favorite aspects of Constantia) and probably even better typographic flexibility (true small caps?). Unfortunately, it’s also $259 for the complete family or about $100 for the minimum set I’d need, and given the near-$0 revenue from Cites & Insights, that’s not going to happen.
Layout changes? None at the moment, at least for the canonical Cites & Insights, except that I’ll remember to activate bookmarks in the PDFs from now on, so that you can open a navigation pane in Reader to go directly to article names or sections.
I did a second survey for those who said they read Cites & Insights in PDF form but online (that is, not printed out). Here’s a lightly edited version of the post announcing the results of that survey.
According to Urchin stats, 98 people viewed the post announcing the survey. The first attempt at an online-oriented PDF was downloaded 17 times. Five people responded to the survey.
“How do you feel about the Online PDF as compared to the regular C&I PDF?”
· Comparative readability online or on your preferred device: One response was “less readable,” one was “about the same,” two were “more readable” and one was “much more readable.” I take that as a mild endorsement for the single-column 6×9 version, and would suggest that one respondent stick with the canonical two-column print-oriented C&I.
· Likelihood that you’d read issues; Likelihood that you’d read all of an issue; Likelihood that you’d publicize the issue to others: I’m clustering all three together because the results were identical: Four said “about the same” and one said “more.” I’ll admit that I was hoping for slightly better responses, especially for the last one, since awareness of C&I outside of the core readership (somewhere between 8 and 800 people?) depends on people publicizing issues and essays.
“Would you pay for (or contribute toward) the Online PDF version?” Given that this was an anonymous survey and that nobody was actually making a commitment, the results are especially interesting in terms of the value people place on C&I:
· Four people said “Possibly: No more than $1/issue or $10-$12/year.”
· One person said “Possibly: Up to $2.50/issue or $25/year.”
· Nobody said “No.” Nobody said “Possibly: More than $25/year.”
I conclude that providing an online version might yield contributions totaling as much as $73/year, total, if I was really lucky. Last year, total contributions were just over $100; so far, there have been no contributions in 2012.
“Do you think it’s worthwhile to generate this version (in addition to the existing PDF, not in place of it)?”
· Not at all: One person
· Yes, if it takes less than 30 minutes per issue to create: Four people.
· Yes, if it takes up to an hour per issue to create and Yes, no matter how much time it takes: Nobody.
“What changes would make an Online PDF version more desirable?” I received three responses. Here they are, in full:
I like it fine. However, I’m used to the other PDF version which appears smaller on my computer screen. I also like the two column layout. However, I could get used to the new version very easily.
What you’ve done with this is great. The biggest issue I have with the current online PDF version is the columns and the constant scrolling.
I would really prefer to have the TOC back. That is pretty much the first thing I look at once I have downloaded an issue.
I am offering an online version, at least for a while. The online version does include “Inside this Issue”—changing the page numbers only takes about 2 minutes—but it does not include any attempts at copyfitting (cleaning up bad breaks, etc., which probably takes 4-6 hours for a typical issue), so it will be typographically crude compared to the two-column version. It is single-column, 28 picas wide, which is still within the range considered to be a readable line width. (Each column of the two-column version is 20 picas wide; many/most trade paperbacks have 26 pica body text width.) A 28-pica width should fit very nicely on iPads, netbooks and other e-devices with at least 9″ screens, and shouldn’t be too bad on 6″-7″ devices.
I should and probably will change the wording on the C&I invitation to contribute to suggest as little as $10/year. Using Paypal, $1/issue contributions seem almost pointless.
Based on responses to the first survey, it might make sense to do the online PDF and scrap the HTML essays. In any case, the “real” C&I will continue to be the two-column, carefully copyfitted, rint-oriented PDF.
Thanks to the five people who responded and, for that matter, to the dozen who apparently checked out the online-oriented version but felt no need to respond.
Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large, Volume 12, Number 2, Whole # 146, ISSN 1534-0937, a journal of libraries, policy, technology and media, is written and produced irregularly by Walt Crawford.
Comments should be sent to waltcrawford@gmail.com. Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large is copyright © 2012 by Walt Crawford: Some rights reserved.
All original material in this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by-nc/1.0 or send a letter to Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305, USA.
URL: citesandinsights.info/civ12i2.pdf