BS 7671 : 2018 + A4 : 2026

Perhaps someone with the electronic version can check if they are seeing a sidebar to indicate changes. I am not. Nor do I like the format, I prefer the text being displayed as per the printed book.

lyledunn said:

Perhaps someone with the electronic version can check if they are seeing a sidebar to indicate changes.

This issue has been raised.

lyledunn said:

Nor do I like the format, I prefer the text being displayed as per the printed book

This is an interesting discussion point. BS 7671 has, for as long as I've been a scholar of it, been printed in Times New Roman (or a similar font).

That kind of font, I'm led to understand, is not good for readability, for example if one is dyslexic. So the ability to present the standard in a way that improves readability is, quite possibly, a great improvement?

lyledunn said:

Perhaps someone with the electronic version can check if they are seeing a sidebar to indicate changes.

This issue has been raised.

lyledunn said:

Nor do I like the format, I prefer the text being displayed as per the printed book

This is an interesting discussion point. BS 7671 has, for as long as I've been a scholar of it, been printed in Times New Roman (or a similar font).

That kind of font, I'm led to understand, is not good for readability, for example if one is dyslexic. So the ability to present the standard in a way that improves readability is, quite possibly, a great improvement?

gkenyon said:

That kind of font, I'm led to understand, is not good for readability, for example if one is dyslexic.

Not if you are north of the border - scroll about half way down under "Typeface". It is well-established that dyslexia is not a visual problem.

I think that it is all about fashion - TNR used to be the preferred font for newspapers (obviously) and official documents. Now sans-serif fonts are dominant. The problem for me is distinguishing between lower case lima and upper case india (lI) as opposed to (lI).

gkenyon said:

That kind of font, I'm led to understand, is not good for readability, for example if one is dyslexic. So the ability to present the standard in a way that improves readability is, quite possibly, a great improvement?

Colleges and training providers are well aware of reading issues such as dyslexia. That is one of the primary reasons the training provider I work for invested in the electronic version. When referring to specific text, candidates will have their copy of 7671 or GN3 in front of them and the same page, with exactly the same text in the same format, will be up on the big screen for all to see. The tutor can then read from the screen, use the laser pen, if necessary, to carefully explain the text, table or diagram on display. Candidates then have a much better chance of deciphering the same information from their own books. 

"a great improvement?".....not for us.......rather a retrograde step. 

gkenyon said:

lyledunn said:

Nor do I like the format, I prefer the text being displayed as per the printed book

This is an interesting discussion point. BS 7671 has, for as long as I've been a scholar of it, been printed in Times New Roman (or a similar font).

There's a lot more to the fonts thing...

I also review/advise on EC registration (EngTech/IEng/CEng) and 'hate' the A4 full width Swiss/Helvetica style fonts on that wide screen format. My eyes glaze over very quickly as its so 'same-y', it's 'wood for the trees' tedium.

Newspapers have [narrow] 'columns' for readability, along with serif fonts, Novels often have ragged right to give a feel for 'place on the page', along with serifs to create flow lines.

The reformatted (reflowed text) docs can work if there is no reference for what is the nominal expectation, especially with hyperlinked reference works (some legal/legislation docs can do that well - instead of page flicking to get to to the definition of the term).

Times New Roman is great for readability, in the right context. 

Helvetica is great for road signs, and boring (but pretty) business letters  .

There should be a "pdf (portable document format / page description format)" option to complement the quick read/reference formats. (and it should be designed into the preparation work flow tools)

gkenyon said:

That kind of font, I'm led to understand, is not good for readability, for example if one is dyslexic. So the ability to present the standard in a way that improves readability is, quite possibly, a great improvement?

I mostly use the Vitalsource because it's a lot more accessible than my crumpled up hardcopy.

But I've found the rendering is going all over the place. Especially when I open the GNs - one day I'm getting the page as it looks in hard copy and the next I'm getting just text with tables unreadable.

I'm not sure if something I'm doing wrong. 

Chris Pearson said:

Now sans-serif fonts are dominant.

Agh, the business pretty, rounded characters, block aligned, all 'design', no content, style...

'1Il' and 'O0' confusions (and that's just ASCII, never mind Unicode look-alikes)