SOAPBOX TIME!

Yes, I'm still stuck on the subject of writing pattern instructions using rows instead of inches.  Please, bear with me a little longer!  Poor Oliver, who has been a little naughty--no, that's not fair; his problems are all my own fault--he's been bumped to my next post.  The photo at left is his front; I inserted it mainly because 3 posts in a row without pictures is surely the kiss of death in the knitblog world.

Anyway, I got so fired up by this subject that I fired off an email to editors at Interweave Knits, Vogue Knitting, knitty.com, and Knitter's Magazine.  Since this was at 1 a.m. (my mind was racing and I couldn't sleep), my email was a little wonky, reading in part:

I believe that the present convention for pattern-writing does not go far enough to ensure accurate sizing, and could be greatly improved by:

1) Amending the typical "TAKE TIME TO CHECK GAUGE" to read, "BLOCK GAUGE SWATCH USING SAME FINISHING METHOD  (i.e. wet thoroughly, squeeze out excess moisture and dry flat; steam; press; tumble dry; pr none) YOU PLAN TO USE ON COMPLETED GARMENT, AND USE BLOCKED SWATCH TO DETERMINE GAUGE"; 2) Changing pattern instructions* so that dimensions are given in rows and stitches, not inches/centimeters.

*Please note that I say pattern instructions; dimensions of finished garments should still be given in inches/centimeters.

That whole gauge thing--ouch.  No wonder an editorial assistant at Interweave (which BTW already uses "check gauge after blocking"--credit where due!!) responded:

Thank you for your input.  We will certainly be taking your suggestions into consideration.  The problem we often face is the issue of space available in our magazine, and a certain established style of pattern writing.  We appreciate hearing from our readers as it helps us serve you better!

Translation:  You're a crackpot, but we try to be nice to anyone who takes the time to write to us. 

So this morning, after I'd had my coffee, I composed and sent the following:

Thank you for your response.  I apologize for sounding perhaps tongue-in-cheek; of course it is not realistic to print the entire "Gauge" statement I proposed for each pattern, and as I noted, your magazine does already use "check gauge after blocking," which is a great improvement over no mention of blocking at all.

But I am quite serious about the latter suggestion.  The fact that your magazine uses "check gauge after blocking" suggests strongly that you and your fellow editors agree with me that blocking changes gauge, sometimes significantly.  Once you have made this assumption, it is just not possible to deny that measuring a garment in inches while it is in progress--unblocked--is inaccurate. 

While in many cases a difference of an inch or two is unimportant, or the knitter instinctively compensates for the directions, (i.e. stretching slightly to measure), in some cases this inaccuracy can cause an unsatisfactory result, especially (but not only!) for an inexperienced knitter. 

As the pattern provider, your magazine and designers should be motivated to provide the most accurate patterns possible:  more satisfied knitters make better customers.  And it is never simpler to convert inches to rows than when the designer has a completed sample, and/or a fully charted design and a good-sized blocked swatch, sitting in front of her (or him)--nor does it take any more space to state dimensions in rows rather than inches.

Of course I realize this suggestion does not fit with the established style of pattern writing; that is why I am writing to you, and to other knitting magazines.  I quote Nancy Bush (Knitting Vintage Socks):  "[In nineteenth-century British sock patterns]...there was no information on yardage, on the weight of specific balls or skeins, or, most importantly, on gauge."  We've come a long way since then!  Why not continue to improve pattern conventions?

Now, I ask YOUR help--knitbloggers and blog readers--so that patterns can be better for all of us.  If you agree with my logic, then please write to knit magazines and the Craft Yarn Council and let them know (and please implement these changes in your own original patterns).  Here is an improved version of the changes I recommend:

1) Amend the typical “TAKE TIME TO CHECK GAUGE” (or simply "GAUGE") to read, “CHECK GAUGE AFTER BLOCKING"

2) Make gauge swatches in pattern stitch, not just stockinette (which many patterns already do)

3) Write pattern instructions so that all dimensions are given in ROWS and stitches, not (or at least in addition to) inches/centimeters.  Dimensions of finished garments should still be given in inches/centimeters. 

P.S.  In the meantime, when using an already-printed pattern, you can always multiply inches given in instructions by the row gauge provided (assuming the gauge was done in the pattern stitch)--or maybe the BQ isn't such a flippant idea, after all.

Comments

[eunny]

This is a great post, with some really good points. I'm going to excerpt this in my next entry, if you don't mind...I hadn't thought about it before, but I realized that I had been doing the row-gauge multiplying song and dance every time I came across a progress measurement in inches. Bah!