In the past few weeks, I’ve sent an early draft of Charts Made Simple to a few knitters, and asked for feedback: Does the book cover what it should? And does it do so in a friendly, encouraging way? Some of the responses have been fascinating. (And some scary, like the one noting the utter total mismatch between a photo and its caption – eek! Just the sort of thing that can slip through multiple rounds of editing, only to burst out of hiding once the book is printed.)
One knitter asked why the book didn’t draw a distinction between color charts and texture charts, why it didn’t explain how they have to be read differently. I had to say I didn’t see a sharp distinction, but a spectrum. At one end, you have charts for stranded or intarsia knitting, with colors in the chart squares.
At the other end, you have charts for lace, cables, knit/purl patterns, and other forms of texture, with symbols in the chart squares.
And in the middle? All sorts of charts! Consider a mitten chart showing stranded colorwork and shaping: a few of the charts squares are filled with both color and a symbol.
Or slip-stitch patterns: many chart squares specify both color and some sort of symbol.
Or charts for shadow knitting: it’s the texture added by the garter ridges that turns simple stripes into subtle, viewed-at-an-angle color patterns.
Or Bohus-style charts: strategically-placed purls elevate stranded colorwork beyond stockinette into a gorgeous new realm.
As I see it, you read all these charts remains the same way. You keep in mind that the chart shows you a picture of the right side of the fabric. You read the chart in the same direction you knit: from the bottom up, back and forth if knitting flat or always from right to left if knitting in the round. And you let the contents of each chart square tell you how to create the next stitch. According to the chart’s key, you might need to knit with a specified color, k2tog with another color, or just plain k2tog. That’s chart reading, in a nutshell. And it doesn’t require drawing a distinction between color charts and texture charts.
Or am I missing something? Is it possible to draw a useful distinction between color charts and texture charts? Is it possible to say, “Do this when following color charts, but do that when following texture charts”?
Tagged: charting.
Nope. I can't think of a single pattern/book/pamphlet that has ever said that there is something different, and totally unique to a chart that depicts color over a chart that depicts texture. And, all I can say is - why would someone want multiple charts - separate charts for texture and colorwork - when it is one project? Why?? :)
Maybe this person who is hinting that there is a difference, is thinking of some of the magazine publications that sometimes do color charts. But also put symbols on the colored boxes to supposedly help delineate which color they really want you to use- that makes it a bit harder to use the chart if it should have also symbols indicating decreases/increases/cables
Hmm. Guess I'm a one chart kinda knitter - and I love charts! They are speedy, before you are well into the knitting, you can see the pattern visually. :)
» linken
Hmm. I know the sort of charts you’re talking about, where the colors you’re supposed to use are shown both by color and by symbols. I’ve always figured they were a bonus to knitters who photocopied their patterns, working from the copies and leaving the pristine originals at home. If the copier didn’t handle color, or the colors got washed out, you’d still be able to figure out what colors to use by looking at the symbols.
But I don’t recall ever seeing a chart of this sort also using symbols to indicate shaping or texture patterning. Like you, I suspect that would make the chart a little more challenging to follow. I’ll have to keep my eyes open, and see if I can spot any charts like that.
» JC
Interweave's charts use colors as well as symbols, and when there is shaping in the color charts, there are shaping symbols in the color boxes. Of course I can't find any examples offhand, but I know they exist because I've drawn them. When I do them, I try to make sure that the color symbol looks significantly different from the shaping symbols to help alleviate confusion and make the chart easier to read.
» Karen Frisa
Karen, I don’t think the issue would be with shaping symbols that resemble the symbols used to indicate color. I think it’s just that the shaping symbols would get lost in the sea of color symbols... wouldn’t they?
» JC
Thanks for the in-depth post. The way you've laid out both ends of the spectrum and fleshed it out with a few points on the continuum serves to reinforce what you've stated so well:
"According to the chart’s key, you might need to knit with a specified color, k2tog with another color, or just plain k2tog. That’s chart reading, in a nutshell. And it doesn’t require drawing a distinction between color charts and texture charts."
That's the essence of it. The chart is the map. One map, one key, and an understanding of how to interpret the landscape of the fabric via the map and key are all one needs.
I still can't wrap my mind around how a color chart and a texture chart "have to be read differently". Was this knitter referring at some level to the fact that in textured knitting charts, the "private side" lines are often omitted? Rather than saying one type of chart has to be read differently than another, and as you've said, it's really about using the chart to "survey the landscape" and its key to "follow the path".
I want to take a moment to thank you for your blog! This is my first comment, but I have enjoyed every one of your posts and look forward to what each new post will bring.
» Erica
Thanks for the kind words, Erica!
As to how the reviewer figured color and texture charts ought to be worked differently... I’m not sure. She’s been on vacation, and tough to reach.
» JC
Hey, Karen—I found some examples! Check out the Summer 2008 issue of Interweave Knits.
Page 92 has a perfect example of why you’d want to use both color and symbols to indicate color. Michele Rose Orne’s Autumn Asters Cardigan features no less than eleven colors, many of them quite close: red-orange and terra cotta, light pink and pale peach, etc. Without symbols augmenting what’s shown by color, it would be really tough to figure out which stitches ought to be dark red, and which ought to be dark purple. Bonus: keeping visual clutter to a minimum, the main color isn’t shown with a symbol.
In contrast, the charts on pages 88 and 89 for Chrissy Gardiner's Windowpane Socks feature only two colors. They’re very distinct, yet they’re augmented with symbols anyway. Why? The two symbols—a square and a circle—aren’t terribly distinct, and don’t add any information to the chart. I doubt they’d even be necessary if the chart were copied on a black-and-white photocopier. But they add visual clutter that makes it tougher to spot the slashes used to indicate k2tog and ssk decreases. That’s the sort of chart for which I’d argue against augmenting the colors with symbols.
» JC
Ooh! And on page 56, a perfectly clear mosaic chart, with symbols used only to indicate when to slip stitches. But on page 60, a mosaic chart cluttered with color symbols that obscure the crucial slip-st symbols. Why?
I guess I’m just an anti-clutter kind of chart lover.
» JC