Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
Popular Woodworking Magazine: Here’s a list of 5 simple ratios to keep in mind at any stage in your design process, or frankly any time you are building something!
Well, this article was a little less helpful than I thought it would be. The first and last ratios are just blatent advertisements for the website, and only the 3rd and 4th ratios seem all that helpful. 3:2 is a pretty simple number that's easy to remember as a base for how much extra wood to buy, and not something I'd heard before. I'd be interested in a whole article devoted to the 4th set of ratios- why are these ratios supposed to be the base of a woodworking project? what makes them more useful or easier than other measurements?
I agree with Sarah, I thought this article was actually going to helpful. It's cute that they made this whole ratio thing but it's more to advertise their product than anything design/woodworking related. The only one I found useful was the measure twice, cut once but I'm pretty sure that's pretty common knowledge for anyone who has ever worked with wood. All four wood shop teachers/professors that I have had all said that.
When I saw the title of this article I thought that it would-be interesting, and discuss things like golden ratios, or the aesthetics of certain rations. Instead the article was basically just an advertisement for the website, with a few common sense things sprinkled in (measure twice cut once, and order more than you need). Albeit, there was that chart on design rations, but it was barely discussed and beneath it there was an advertisement for a PDF of ratios that the website is publishing soon. This article was disappointing, and it had so much potential. Maybe is should write to one of the editors, the first ration does say that there’s an editor just for me (does a 1:1 ratio of readers to editors mean that they have an incredibly large staff or an incredibly small readership?)
Wow this article sucks (sorry for this blunt comment). First of all, it's horribly written and makes absolutely no sense. Also, a lot of these rules assume you're buying lesser quality products. But if you aren't, this article is completely useless. I think it's also wicked tacky to advertise your own business on an article such as this. Are you educating or marketing the product?
4 comments:
Well, this article was a little less helpful than I thought it would be. The first and last ratios are just blatent advertisements for the website, and only the 3rd and 4th ratios seem all that helpful. 3:2 is a pretty simple number that's easy to remember as a base for how much extra wood to buy, and not something I'd heard before. I'd be interested in a whole article devoted to the 4th set of ratios- why are these ratios supposed to be the base of a woodworking project? what makes them more useful or easier than other measurements?
I agree with Sarah, I thought this article was actually going to helpful. It's cute that they made this whole ratio thing but it's more to advertise their product than anything design/woodworking related. The only one I found useful was the measure twice, cut once but I'm pretty sure that's pretty common knowledge for anyone who has ever worked with wood. All four wood shop teachers/professors that I have had all said that.
When I saw the title of this article I thought that it would-be interesting, and discuss things like golden ratios, or the aesthetics of certain rations. Instead the article was basically just an advertisement for the website, with a few common sense things sprinkled in (measure twice cut once, and order more than you need). Albeit, there was that chart on design rations, but it was barely discussed and beneath it there was an advertisement for a PDF of ratios that the website is publishing soon. This article was disappointing, and it had so much potential. Maybe is should write to one of the editors, the first ration does say that there’s an editor just for me (does a 1:1 ratio of readers to editors mean that they have an incredibly large staff or an incredibly small readership?)
Wow this article sucks (sorry for this blunt comment). First of all, it's horribly written and makes absolutely no sense. Also, a lot of these rules assume you're buying lesser quality products. But if you aren't, this article is completely useless. I think it's also wicked tacky to advertise your own business on an article such as this. Are you educating or marketing the product?
Post a Comment