Is this looking better or worse? (pardon the page boundary)

· · Web · 3 · 1 · 1

@kimreece Hard to say. Both are readable for me, although I think I prefer the centered one.

@werekat Thank you! It has a lot of traits I default to liking, so I wanted an external perspective lest I do something too eccentric.

@kimreece hard to say without full page context, but I think I like the second image better. Feels more balanced.

@mrb Thank you! When trying out something as subjective as formatting, I really appreciate having more than one perspective on it.

@kimreece I think the thing that's bothering me about the nondefault formatting is that the equation and the table are both off to the left, but not by the same amount. The table is flush with the nonindented lines of the paragraph above, rather than lining up with the $f(1,-1)$.

@kimreece One other tiny thing: Are the numbers in the table not in math mode? The minus signs don't look quite right.

@bstacey 🤦‍♂️ yup that happened. In my prior formatting it didn't matter visibly, with the new one it does... I am attempting to 'pretty up' the thesis with some decent layout and it's really highlighting every little thing I've been sloppy about on the way.

@kimreece Adventures in typesetting! :-D

I ended up making two different versions of my PhD thesis. One was typeset per the department and the university's standards, to be saved in the library or sent off to ProQuest or wherever, and it looked horrible. I put effort and care into the other, designed cover art for it, and printed several copies at a local bookshop with a print-on-demand machine. Those, unlike the "official" copies, I feel proud of!

@bstacey >.< I am so lucky (or not?) that we have no official standard. I pulled on the basis that, ideal or not, it's at least arguably not my fault.

@kimreece Lolz :-)

Not a bad strategy, to be honest!

Brandeis's requirements for the official archival copy were just ... odd. Why require double spacing for something that's not a rough draft?

@bstacey Weirdly I feel the opposite way and prefer at least 1.3 even in published works; most text is too dense for my comfort. So I must under most circumstances condense my work, check page count, then re-expand it for comfort. But publication standards are what they are.

@kimreece Nothing wrong with variations in taste and comfort, of course. :-) That whole process of making the "official" version put me on edge, mostly due to dealing with ProQuest. Lots of "we need you to do more work so this company will be able to sell you copies of your own writing" nonsense.

@bstacey :shudders: Entirely understandable. I'm glad you had the sense to create a stunning work to your own taste along the way. Sometimes, it is a dearly necessary thing.

@kimreece Fortunately, I'd done a few projects of that sort already, so I had templates on hand that got all the margins and gutters nicely sized, and I had a little experience fashioning cover art.

In addition to being fun, it was very satisfying to have books on hand that I could give to people. My mom had been saying ever since I got past calculus that what I work on is over her head, and at least by printing a book I could hand her something tangible!

@bstacey Double-spacing: If not simple institutional lag from typewritten manuscripts, frequently for ease in annotation.


@dredmorbius @bstacey The circumstances in which anyone deigns to annotate a thesis after its finalization... are illusory pretense and do not typically occur. Sadly, as often the best work is buried in those, and I've already had occasion to cite several. In practice, they get folded into my usual annotation workflow, which is already adjusted for perilously dense journals.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!