Cable crosses are typically worked on right-side rows. But what if Stitch-Maps.com is asked to draw a cable cross on a wrong-side row? What should it do then?
Take 2/2 RC, for example.
It’s defined as “Slip 2 sts to cn and hold in back, k2, k2 from cn” – that is, knit all the stitches. That’s why the symbol contains four little vertical lines: each is meant to represent a knit stitch.
But if 2/2 RC is placed on a WS row via written instructions like these:
Row 1 (WS): K4, 2/2 RC, k4.
Then the symbol doesn’t make sense anymore. Knitting on the wrong side creates purl stitches on the right side. If you maintain that symbols ought to show the right-side view of each stitch – as I really, truly do, because that’s how you get charts that resemble knitted fabric – then the symbol you’d need to display would look something like this, which uses dots to stand in for purl bumps:
So far, the approach I’ve taken at Stitch-Maps.com has been to define symbols for representing both the right- and wrong-side view of each stitch. In many cases that’s been pretty easy, because many stitches come in RS/WS complement pairs: knit is the flip side of purl, M1L is the flip side of M1Lp, and k2tog is the flip side of p2tog.
In a few cases, I’ve had to invent some symbols – for example, to represent Japanese cluster stitches like yo-k2-pyo when worked on the wrong side rather than the right side.
But is this the right approach for cable crosses? Does Stitch-Maps.com really need right-side and wrong-side versions of 48 cable cross symbols? I have to imagine that having 96 cable cross symbols – half of which would rarely, if ever, appear in a stitch map – in the key would make the key unbearably long and difficult to wade through.
So here’s what I propose. For starters, Stitch-Maps.com won’t try to draw cable crosses on wrong-side rows. Rather, when asked to do so, it’ll display an error message like this one:
If this proves too limiting, additional symbols can be added to the key later, on an as-needed, case-by-case basis. In the meantime, if anyone really wants cable cross symbols to appear on both odd- and even-numbered rows, it would be possible to enter the stitch pattern as a series of all-RS rounds, not alternating right- and wrong-side rows.
Your thoughts?
Tagged: charting, geeky, stitch maps.
If I saw 2/2 RC on a WS row, I'd expect there to be an explanation for how to work it on a WS row: sl 2 sts onto cn, hold in back, p2, p2 from cn. I would not expect it to show as purls on the RS. And if I were charting it, I would not expect there to be a different symbol for it.
So, I don't think you need to create 48 new symbols. :) If you want to support cable crosses on WS rows, I just think you need to define how to work them -- just like one defines "knit on RS, purl on WS."
» Karen Frisa
(Pretend that is a regular smilie and not those yellow thingies...)
» Karen Frisa
Karen, the problem isn't having a 2/2 RC symbol on a WS row in a stitch map. As you point out, it’s easy enough to describe how to do that cross on the WS, purling the stitches so they appear as knits on the RS.
The problem is having a 2/2 RC abbreviation on a WS row in a set of written instructions. If “2/2 RC” means “cross 2 stitches to the right over 2 other stitches, knitting all of them,” then what symbol should be put on display? Arguably, one that indicated purl stitches, when viewed from the RS of the fabric.
» JC
I'm saying that 2/2 RC shouldn't be defined as "knitting all of them" -- it should be defined as knitting them on RS rows and purling them on WS rows.
I don't think you need to define symbols for cables where all of the stitches in the cable are purled (as viewed from the RS) because they are extremely rare.
» Karen Frisa
So you’re saying that if someone gives Stitch-Maps.com written instructions that include 2/2 RC on a WS row, you’d want the same symbol to appear as when 2/2 RC is included on a RS row? That doesn't make sense to me. If “k5” is included in the instructions for a WS row, the site doesn’t draw 5 knit (as viewed from RS) symbols; it draws 5 purl (as viewed from RS) symbols.
Can you cite any publications where 2/2 RC (or some such similar abbreviation) is defined as “On RS, cross the sts and knit them. On WS, cross the sts and purl them”?
Bottom line: for me, it’s all a question of what should be drawn when the written instructions say “2/2 RC” on a WS row. What should the knitter do, if they’re following the written instructions? What would the resulting appearance be on the RS?
» JC
There are not a lot of times when cable crosses happen on WS rows, but one example is in Knit.Wear, Fall/Winter 2013, Ashley Rao's Twelve Cables Pullover, page 82.
I'm thinking of "2/2 RC" as an expression of what I want the knitting to look like, just as "stockinette stitch" is an expression of what I want the knitting to look like. So to me it makes sense that if I see 2/2 RC on a WS row, I should end up with something that looks like a standard knitted cable from the RS. It sounds like you are thinking of "2/2 RC" as the details of the stitch manipulation, independent of how it's being viewed. Maybe that's just because we're so used to cables only being defined as what happens on the RS, since they're so rarely worked on the WS?
I think there is more chance that a WS cable cross would need to be executed so that it looked like all knits from the RS than that it looked like all purls from the RS. So just pragmatically speaking, it might make sense for your definitions to work that way.
» Karen Frisa
Karen, I think you've hit the nail on the head. We've been thinking about cable cross abbreviations like 2/2 RC in a fundamentally different way.
Most of the time, an abbreviation is an expression of what to do, regardless of whether you're on a RS or WS row. But I can see your argument for cable cross abbreviations being different: an expression of what you'll see on the RS of the fabric regardless of whether you're on a RS or WS row. They're different in part because they're typically worked on RS rows only, but mostly because we only ever want to see their RS views.
So... if cable cross abbreviations were defined as Stitch-Maps.com in terms of what-you'll-see (unlike every other abbreviation, which will still be in terms of what-you'll-do), will anyone get confused by this inconsistency? Mm, probably not, I don't think. Probably, few people would notice. Wouldn't you agree?
» JC
For cables that have both knits and purls, you won't be able to define the cable as "sl 2 sts onto cn, hold in back, work 2 sts in St st, work 2 sts in rev St st" (if that's what you were thinking of doing) because on the WS the stitches will be worked in the other order (rev St st first, then St st).
I think if you give RS and WS definitions for the cables you'll be fine. And for cables that are all St st, of course you could just say to work the stitches in St st.
And no, I don't think most people will be confused.
» Karen Frisa
Agreed. A cable like 2/1 LPC would have to be defined as: “On RS, slip 2 sts to cn and hold in front, p1, k2 from cn. On WS, slip 1 st to cn and hold in front, p2, k1 from cn.”
» JC