SRD 3.5 Competition

Dimwhit

Explorer
OK, Hellhounds has upped the ante on the prizes. The winner of each group will now get his/her choice of 4 E.N. Publishing e-products. Pretty awesome, eh?! Thanks for Hellhound for the generousity.

On another note: I need to know if anyone is working on a miscellaneous entry? Like for PDA, or a server-side database version, or something. If there is or isn't, I need to know.

And in the event that some is going to do a PDA version, I need some judges with PDAs! Email me at srd@dimwhit.com.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Cergorach

The Laughing One
doktorstick said:
I downloaded it and quickly went through each page (not looking for content, yet). With respect to the tables and the shading, I think it would look better if the text had cellpadding between it and the bottom of the row. Without padding on the bottom of each row, I get the impression that the table is crowded.
I figured that was the problem, i'll make sure to 'repair' it.
 

woodelf

First Post
kreynolds said:
Hmm. Considering that the three core books don't have a very organic appearance to them, IMO (aside from the covers), I don't think I'm straying that much from the norm. In fact, if you look real close, the borders in the core books are in fact "metal plates" with a texture (one I'm not too fond of) on them. There just aren't any hinges.

Opinion: the D&D core books are not merely sub-par, they're downright ugly.
Suggestion: stray far, far from the look of the core books. IMHO, a good design for this will be better than the core books, and there is no need to stick to some of the bizarre design choices they made.
 

mythusmage

Banned
Banned
Hi everybody,

Haven't read the full thread. Besides which, I doubt I'll be done in time to enter. But I decided to present an example of my work on this thread for anybody who'd like to comment, critique, advise, whatever.

PDF of course. The font is Palatino all the way down, with the main text at 10 points. Yes, there is white space. If you'd rather there be something there, I have a dingbat font known as Bas Bayeaux I could convert to PICTS and insert in appropriate spots for eye candy.

BTW, Andy used AppleWorks 6 for OSX for the SRD. I use AppleWorks for OS9. The two are not exactly compatible. Which means your likely to see some places where certain symbols are missing or 'replaced'. Remember that this is a preliminary look at my PDF, the glitches will be fixed for the final version.

Finally, did you know that in the d20 SRD Revised human females have a base height of four yen, five euros?:) (as translated by my version of AppleWorks.)
 

Attachments

  • c&c.zip
    41.7 KB · Views: 251

woodelf

First Post
kreynolds said:
That's a little vague. How do you mean?
Most people don't have access to a printer that can print a full bleed. Therefore, any design that includes full bleeds is gonna get modified when printed, and the printed version won't have fidelity to the on-screen version. Whether it is cropped or shrunk, you end up with a (generally) unattractive white border around the printed border. Therefore, designing something that is intended to have an unprinted border is, IMHO, better.

kreynolds said:
Are you saying that resolution and display size don't make a difference? If so, then I can't disagree more. My laptop has a 15-inch (maybe 14-inch, now that I think about it, but too lazy to grab a ruler) display, and at 1024x768, I can read my PDF without any difficulty at all. I.E., no squinting.
No, i'm not saying they don't matter. I'm saying, i drive my monitors at 72 ppi, period, and that's the resolution i get, and thus the screen real estate--so 1152x870 for my big (20") monitor. Yes, i could drive them at higher resolutions, and squeeze more pixels on, but at the cost of everything being smaller. This is bad (IMHO) both because my monitor no longer matches output and because, at some point, i just end up increasing font sizes so i can read things, so i don't really gain anything, i just end up with the relative sizes of images and type being out of whack.

kreynolds said:
I agree, but that's not the primary look I'm going for, mostly due to the fact that I think you _can_ have an ornate design that is attractive, functional, and can still be easy on the eyes. For example, my current layout is easy on _my_ eyes. ;)

Oh, i agree. I'm just not sure a PDF for home printing is the place for it, because of issues like no full bleed, no color, iffy contrast, and saving toner/ink.

What i'd love to see would be an ornate, attractive, yet functional design that takes into consideration the limitations of personal printers. IOW, i want it all. I'm not sure it can be done, since most of the ornate stuff ends up on the borders if it's not to impede functionality--which isn't compatible with home printing. Please, prove me wrong. :)
 

woodelf

First Post
Elvinis75 said:
By the same token if they are going to offer it to me for free I’m going to accept that it is going to be using the most common standard out there.

And *that's* where the disagreement may lie: is "the most common standard out there" the standard that all the webbrowsers purport to adhere to (W3C/HTML4), or the standard set by the browser with the dominant marketshare (IE)? Because these two don't quite match. Personally, i think that, in the case of outright clash, go with the standard--IE claims to abide by it, so if your page passes a validator and IE gakks, it's not your fault.
 

Conaill

First Post
Hi mythusmage, thanks for joining! We can always use another competitor.

Your pdf looks like a reasonable start. My main comment would be that it looks very "plain" for now. And I'm not just talking about adding some fancy graphics or dingbats! But even just simple things like making sure there's more distinction between the differnt headings, placing some separators between sections to help the eye, etc.

Look at the right hand column of your first page for example. You've got the "ABILITY SCORES" heading in a somewhat largish font, with "ABILITY MODIFIERS" as a subsection header right below it, but in an only barely smaller font!

Below that, you have "ABILITIES" "AND SPELLCASTER", needlessly split over two lines. It's not easy to see at first glance whether this is a subsection under ABILITY SCORES, or just a new section. (Yes, it is noticeable, but it's not instantly recognizeable as a subsection.) What makes it even worse is that "ABILITIES" seems in a slightly smaller font than "AND SPELLCASTERS" on the line below it. Just an optical illusion, because "abilities" has so many "I"'s in it, so it looks squashed, compared to the "AND".

Then below all that, you get "STRENGTH (STR)" which is yet another palatino B/W all-caps subheader, this time with a smaller fontsize. Further in the document you use yet another, larger, set of header font sizes (pg.6, under "DESCRIPTION"). And all spacing between sections, subsections and last sub-subsection is of equal size...

The whole looks first page looks like there is very little organization to it, with font sizes for the headers seemingly picked at random. True, much of the same can be said of the original RTF version of the SRD, but then again, that's why we're trying to improve on it. ;)


Some practical suggestions for improvement...

- Make at least the top-level sections stand out more. Have a look in the PHB for example, or compare you version with kreynolds version of the same section on page 2. Or Cergorach's version for that matter. Bothe have decided to stick with the blue, underlined, right aligned headers as in the books, which really helps the eye.

- Your table on pg 2 seems a little too roomy. Not sure you could squeeze it into a single column, but you could reduce the height of the rows somewhat. See Cergorach's version as an example of how small you can make those tables while still being perfectly legible. Hist "Sorceror spells known" table for example is about the same size as your "Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells" table, but only take sup a fraction of the space. Make sure the numbers a centered on the white/grey bars (they seem a little too high now).

- I noticed you're using alternating left-right borders. That's great for printing double sided, but most people will probably print single-sided. Unless you're planning on making multiple versions for printing, I would stick with equal borders on both sides. Also make sure your borders are wide enough that a 3-hole punch won't take a bit out of your text (the thinner border is only *just* wide enough for my punch right now).

- I definitely do like the legibility of your version. Compared to kreynolds version of the same section, you manage to squeeze in more content per page with what seems like a significantly larger font.


Looking forward to see you next installment!


Edit: some smaller suggestions... you can easily shrink the starting age and agineffects tables a bit by leaving out "years" in all the entries. Or at least abbreviate to
"yrs". Likewise, you could abbreviate male and femal in the height and weight table to (m) and (f), or even use the male and female symbols (make sure to add a caption if you do the latter). These changes will allow you to fit each row on a single line, cutting the table size in half.
 
Last edited:

kreynolds

First Post
woodelf said:
Opinion: the D&D core books are not merely sub-par, they're downright ugly.

We're just gonna have to disagree here then. While I'm not fond of the redish texture of the borders, I think it looks great with the books as a whole.

woodelf said:
Suggestion: stray far, far from the look of the core books. IMHO, a good design for this will be better than the core books, and there is no need to stick to some of the bizarre design choices they made.

Obviously, I can't follow that suggestion...because I _like_ the look of the core books. :cool:
 

kreynolds

First Post
woodelf said:
Most people don't have access to a printer that can print a full bleed.

They don't need to. I agree with HellHound in that white borders in a PDF are quite unattractive.

woodelf said:
Therefore, any design that includes full bleeds is gonna get modified when printed, and the printed version won't have fidelity to the on-screen version.

Rarely does a printed document have fidenlity with what's on screen, precisely because of the lack of full-bleed printers for most people. However, including white space in the PDF to account for this isn't a viable option for me.

woodelf said:
Whether it is cropped or shrunk, you end up with a (generally) unattractive white border around the printed border.

And I don't think its any better to go ahead and include a white border in the PDF. Granted, if you've got a lot of white space anyway, using minimal borders, then that usually works out in the end. But again, the end for me is not a distilled webpage. I'm not going for that look at all, and I'll do anything to avoid it, even if I have to draft up fifty different layouts. :)

woodelf said:
Therefore, designing something that is intended to have an unprinted border is, IMHO, better.

We'll just have to disagree on this. :cool:

woodelf said:
I'm saying, i drive my monitors at 72 ppi, period, and that's the resolution i get, and thus the screen real estate--so 1152x870 for my big (20") monitor. Yes, i could drive them at higher resolutions, and squeeze more pixels on, but at the cost of everything being smaller. This is bad (IMHO) both because my monitor no longer matches output and because, at some point, i just end up increasing font sizes so i can read things, so i don't really gain anything, i just end up with the relative sizes of images and type being out of whack.

I can honestly say that I am completely incapable of following you here, no matter how hard I try. :)

woodelf said:
Oh, i agree. I'm just not sure a PDF for home printing is the place for it, because of issues like no full bleed, no color, iffy contrast, and saving toner/ink.

I am. ;)

woodelf said:
What i'd love to see would be an ornate, attractive, yet functional design that takes into consideration the limitations of personal printers. IOW, i want it all. I'm not sure it can be done, since most of the ornate stuff ends up on the borders if it's not to impede functionality--which isn't compatible with home printing.

Honestly, I'm not sure how to do what you'd like without going for the distilled webpage look. Granted, a minimal border would probably suffice though.

woodelf said:
Please, prove me wrong. :)

I really don't think I'll change your opinion (to many base disagreements), but I've made peace with that. But, you never know. :cool:
 

woodelf

First Post
Special Abilities

Has anybody taken the time yet to compare the Special Abilities content in the Special Abilities and Conditions document with that in the Types, Subtypes, and Abilites document? Is it simply duplicated content?
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top