Pictorial Introduction to 'Graphics for The Blind'

No Spatial Elements

next page

At first glance both stomach drawings look alright, but the second one will actually be much clearer to the blind reader. I'll list its defects:

pictures ¼ size

wrong

better

1. spatial elements

The stomach's entrance and exit are drawn spatially, an ellipsis and an arc: will this make sense to the reader? What will the ellipsis mean to him? In the second drawing it is immediately clear what the stomach's openings are.
And besides, the drawing is of a section through: not spatial, not the stomach taken out, so representing entrance and exit as openings makes more sense.

2. hatching

A hatch is meant to show something's extent. In the first drawing the big dots are so far apart that the reader might easily gather that they are meant to represent something like holes or moles. Ideally a hatch's elements should not be individually discernible.

3. arrows

What exactly do arrows point at? Isn't there a choice in 2-3A at the arrows indicating duodenum and esophagus? Placing one or two characters in the right place is unequivocal, leaves no room for doubt. Sometimes an arrow is the only way of identifying an element, but I think they should be used sparingly.

4. title

The title is missing. To find out what's in this drawing the reader will have to look it up in the text volume, or he'll have to infer it from the names in the drawing. The small addition 'The stomach' will greatly enhance this drawing's value.

5. figure number

The figure number is split over two lines, 11.11 in the first line, A in the sixth. Why not simply fig.11.11-A in the first line?

6. point 6

There is no need for point 6 in biology.

go to first page, previous page, or next page

© 1989, 2002 Marco Schuffelen All rights reserved