I find the colours are confusing [...] I disregard them, using the diagrams to see where the threads go, not to see what stitch to use.
I've designed a pattern where, although all the surrounding stitches are CTTT, *one* (per repeat) is CTCT -- to support better, and to minimise the hole between the ground and the motif... A similiar procedure is done -- for the same reason -- *regularly* in some of the Tonder patterns; an otherwise "innocent" honeycomb hole will have a CTCTT, instead of the CTT before the first pin (afterwards, it's business as usual)... An all black diagram -- unless it's a *thread by thread* one (and, personally, I don't wanna "go there" <g>) will *not* show it; the *pair* lines move in the same way. And you're not likely to see it in the photo of the finished lace, either.
While colour coding might simplify matters for some, it complicates for others. And woe is the colour blind ;)
Only dogs are truly colour blind, and we're not even sure about them :) People have trouble distinguishing between *pairs* of colours; they do not see everything as black/white/grey. True, Daltonism (red/green blindness) is the most common common one, which would make my suggestion of reducing the whole colouring scheme to those two (plus the black) difficult for them. OTH... Red/green (and, often, yellow) are the the colours of the street-lights, so anyone familiar with those will have made adjustments.
While I understand that most of the Daltonians cross the streets by observing the *position* of the on-light, rather than its colour, I suspect that the *shade* of grey (or whatever) plays some part in it too. And, anyway, what's the percentage of the colour-blind (of whatever variety) among the lacemaking population? Just as the (few) blind lacemakers can make lace by flipping the pattern over (and following the "bumps"), so -- I should think -- could the colour blind draw over the diagramms with the colours they *did* recognize (have it done for them, if you insist; neither do the blind make their own prickings)... Always provided there weren't umpteen of them :)
IMO... Though I'm agreeable to being corrected -- on any and all points of my argument -- by those who have current and scientific (as opposed to: "vaguely remember having read it somewhere, sometime ago" as is true in my case <g>) data at their fingertips.
----- Tamara P Duvall Lexington, Virginia, USA Formerly of Warsaw, Poland http://lorien.emufarm.org/~tpd/
- To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
