NIV 2011 Footnote/Cross-reference Markers
The footnote references and cross-reference references (!) look too similar. I wonder if they could not be more clearly distinguished in the text, e.g. by using a different typeface or weight or style (e.g. letters/numbers) on the footnote references (since they are fewer in number). e.g. check out Ac 14:23 where there are two references and they look very similar.
When reading through I may want to hover over footnotes but ignore cross-references, and at other times I may be more interested in cross-references ...
So this is a plea to have it changed so I am able to spot the difference more easily ...
www.emmanuelecc.org
Comments
-
Jonathan West said:
The footnote references and cross-reference references (!) look too similar. I wonder if they could not be more clearly distinguished in the text, e.g. by using a different typeface or weight or style (e.g. letters/numbers) on the footnote references (since they are fewer in number). e.g. check out Ac 14:23 where there are two references and they look very similar.
When reading through I may want to hover over footnotes but ignore cross-references, and at other times I may be more interested in cross-references ...
So this is a plea to have it changed so I am able to spot the difference more easily ...
Yes, these are difficult to discern. They are slightly different, and it could be that one scheme is using italics vs regular, but the differences are slight enough that they can be difficult to spot, if not confusing.
Another example of this is Heb 2:6-8.
Notice the end of that section where 'b,c u' is found. There is a slight variation in type here that you can see when they are next to each other, but harder to see when the are not (see the 't' at the end of v.6 and the 'a' in the middle of the 1st line of v.7.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
David Ames said:
What is 'b'? a note or a cross-reference?
It is a note (it tells us Heb 2:6-8 quotes Ps 8:4-6). As all notes, it is italicized and follows the order of the other notes. The 'u' is the cross-reference, which also (though redundantly) refers to Ps 8:4-6. But it is not italicized, and it follows the order of the other cross-references.
(You can see similar note/cross-reference redundancy in vv 12-13 of the same chapter.)
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Now I can see that in my post the b and c are italicized BUT look at the screen shot just above that - On screen the italicized text is very not clear.
[What if one was in small caps? Can it be changed now or is it fixed in stone?]
0 -
David Ames said:
. . .On screen the italicized text is very not clear.
Agreed!
David Ames said:[What if one was in small caps? Can it be changed now or is it fixed in stone?]
Or make one set bold, or put one set in a different color.
I don't know that this is fixed in stone, but the digitized version should reflect the formatting of the print version. So there could be some constraints there. However, the current way doesn't look like it's distinct enough to meet the editors goals either.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
I would hope there is no reason why the digital verison should match the print version - it is digital after all and hence allows/needs differences!
I would prefer footnotes to be numbered and cross-references to be letters - if that is not posisble, then maybe the footnotes should be bold - and perhaps subscript rather than superscript (that may be a bit radical[:D])
www.emmanuelecc.org
0
