## RE: Critique of a sample

Subject: RE: Critique of a sample
From: "Janoff, Steven" <Steven -dot- Janoff -at- ga -dot- com>
To: Gene Kim-Eng <techwr -at- genek -dot- com>, "techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 12:07:45 -0800

Excellent points, Gene.

Poster was, I believe, either 11x17 or 2 times 11x17. (Just 11x17 seems small based on what you're saying.)

I was going to write a whole thing on rationale of the piece then realized it could step on proprietary toes so I'd feel better holding off on that, with apologies. Suffice it to say that the emphasis was on Idle mode, and that the sequencing cycle was just there for reference (also to illustrate transitions).

Hope that helps a little bit. Good idea too about bolding those elements. That would certainly make a difference.

Oh, I will say that -- to show your point is a good one about the test -- I did struggle with whether to make the circles equal in size. Also relative position: inside vs. outside, top vs. bottom vs. left or right, concentric vs. intersecting. It was really quite a challenge. Also, different configurations resulted in different directions of things: left to right vs. right to left, clockwise vs. counterclockwise. It was incredibly challenging to make everything work together, like watchmaking. I think we ended up with a fairly good piece, although I think there's a more optimal solution that we didn't have time to reach. There was also an issue with relative time periods that we couldn't quite resolve. It's like a math problem. (I also experimented with different shapes other than the circle, but kept coming back.)

Steve

From: Gene Kim-Eng [mailto:techwr -at- genek -dot- com]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 11:08 AM
To: Janoff, Steven
Cc: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Subject: Re: Critique of a sample

Monitor viewing may be deceptive, but my first impression is that visually the test seems undersized and doesn't stand out.  The circles and arrows could be bolder as well.

I can't give you a totally outsider POV, since I have past experience with DNA sequencers, but other than my impressions about readability it seems clear enough to me.

Gene Kim-Eng

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Janoff, Steven <Steven -dot- Janoff -at- ga -dot- com> wrote:

I'm curious how it looks in general even to those outside the intended audience (scientists performing DNA sequencing runs on these machines).  Is it evident what this is about on first look, or is it confusing?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Doc-To-Help: new website, content widgets, and an output that works on any screen.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com

http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and info.

Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online magazine at http://techwhirl.com

Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives

Follow-Ups:

References:
Critique of a sample: From: Janoff, Steven
Re: Critique of a sample: From: Gene Kim-Eng

Previous by Author: Critique of a sample
Next by Author: RE: Critique of a sample
Previous by Thread: Re: Critique of a sample
Next by Thread: Re: Critique of a sample

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues: