1. I found c. easiest to use wrt footnotes
But is this the main question?
I find the other ones easier to use
in general: the footnotes are not
the most frequently looked up parts!
2. c.
3. c.
4. rather c. but I dislike the bold face parts
I could argue about color choice but it’s quite
good already and not worth a discussion that
would most likely lead to settling on the
current choice anyway
5. f. yes, on an extended refcard version
I usually won’t need them – but maybe if
people /have/ that extended refcard and
start using it, they’ll be better able
to state problems related to them and
generally learn and use these terms¹
and then it would become even more
mandatory to have them on the card
¹ and consistently so
6. I do have a preference but I’m using them
too sparingly for my feedback to be valuable.
include more foreigns
7. First of all, I want it to be versioned.
verbs inconsistently are explained explicitly or tacitly
(e. g. “x mod y” vs “rnd”)
x and y need highlighting as well (as has been done for “rnd ∈ i. y”)
the fonts are quite okay, could have been much worse
Some mistakes (or choices I mistook for mistakes):
• 1arπ is not a literal
• amend bracketing needs matching colors
• dagger for conjugate?
• floor has a stray 1
• oblique’s result’s argument is black
• generally still a bit rough around the edges but mainly well done!
Thanks for all the effort @viktor
maybe I’ll have more to say if/when I take another look
Am 04.08.22 um 17:01 schrieb Henry Rich:
Viktor Grigorov has been busily reworking the old J6.02 reference card.
The goals of the project are
* show language changes since J6.02
* convert to LaTeX
With the information in LaTeX, it will be easy to change font sizes and
placement. The card can then accommodate new changes, and there can be
multiple versions: perhaps a Large Type version for us old folks.
We need your help! There are some design questions that need answering
before Viktor proceeds. He has created 3 versions of a portion of the
card:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VwHRkL3I0R6UeqwRtntuMtgcevTk5fS5/view?usp=sharing
footnotes by paragraph
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JRuZDUU3Ij3Cq2AhvsckDu1eWdgb5SUC/view?usp=sharing
footnotes at bottom of page in 3 columns
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10KaGw1Mudi3mm-cb5g7SI59RQ-WPvGcm/view?usp=sharing
footnotes at bottom of page in 1 column
To take this survey, start by putting the 3 versions into whatever form
you would normally use them in: either in a window or printed on paper.
Then answer the questions.
1. In each document, look at a couple of tables with a footnote, and
refer to the footnotes. Which layout did you find easiest to use?
a. footnotes at bottom, 1 column
b. footnotes at bottom, 3 columns
c. footnotes below each table
2. What do you think of the size of the main text?
a. too small
b. about right
c. could be smaller
3. What do you think of the size of the footnote text?
a. too small
b. about right
c. could be smaller
4. What do you think of the coloration (indicating part of speech)?
a. don't like it
b. no opinion
c. like it
5. Consider the two tables 'Adverbs' and 'Conjunctions'. The adverb
table has a column of menmonic names, the conjunction table does not.
Are the names helpful?
a. no
b. no opinion
c. yes, for the adverbs
d. yes, and I would like to see names added for the conjunctions
e. yes, and I would like to see a mnemonic name for every primitive
6. In the Foreigns table, would you prefer to see the system-defined
name in addition to/instead of the m!:n value?
a. m!:n only
b. both
c. system name only
7. Do you have suggestions for formatting? Write them in.
Please post responses to this Forum (or to me personally if you prefer).
Henry Rich
--
----------------------
mail written using NEO
neo-layout.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
