Anne LaVinn said: >I interpreted the content of the article to mean, among a lot of other >useful bits, that having two distinct types of arrowheads (in addition >to having the mountain-fold-arrow show motion towards the back of the >piece by "hooking around") also helps the reader distinguish between >the two types of folds. Anything that clarifies potential ambiguities >is good in instructions, so it seems a very reasonable bit of advice >to me.
>Further, Lang states: >"On the [mountain-fold] arrow, however, there is definite agreement >(more so than with the valley fold). An arrow associated with a >mountain fold has a single-sided hollow head (figures 9 and 10 show >examples)." >And one of the first premises in the article was: >The way things have been done in the past > has a big thing going for >it: it is known to work, and it is known to many. In origami >diagramming, that means > that unless there is pressing reason >otherwise, we should use the standard notation..." >So given that there is a large body of work out there where the >one-sided hollow-headed arrowhead is associated with a mountain fold, >and there are good reasons for distinguishing the arrow types as well >as using the arrow's tail to represent the motion of the fold, then it >seems to me one should really consider using it, or risk confusing >your readers. The way things have been done in the past has a big thing going >for >it: it is known to work, and it is known to many. In origami >diagramming, that means that unless there is pressing reason >otherwise, we should use the standard notation..." >If your drawing application cannot create one-sided, hollow >arrowheads, then you can of course make do with whatever arrows you >have - but they'll be a bit non-standard, and could thus be a bit >confusing to someone looking for the regular notation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Does the line style not indicate the motion of the fold...maybe I am missing an ambiguity. How else would one fold a line that indicates mountain motion? When necessary, due to layers: Hooking (either arrow) is used to indicate folding around layers The “push in here” symbol is used to indicate tucking between a layer Yes there is definite agreement on the arrow style symbol for the mountain motion. Despite the argument “the way things have been done in the past” I have noticed that often in beginning steps of a diagrammed model a directional “valley arrow” is used over a mountain motion line. Due to the common practice, I will argue it must be accepted and understood by folders. There is an element of ease in accepting a symbol because "that is the way it has always been done" (imagine retraining the mob-but oh, yeah...they already understand as mentioned), however I liken the not so logical reason “that is the way it has always been done” to the story "I cut off a big chunk of the ham before placing it in the pot because my mother always did it that way". When we look closer...the reason mother did that was her pot was too small for the ham...my pot is not too small, so I stopped cutting off that big chunk of ham. The pressing reason: Simplicity...in diagramming (particularly more complex) models . Critical thinking can bring new insight vs. accepting a logic that may not be quite logical. The app is fine...thanks! The visual complexity on paper of the model being diagrammed gave rise to looking at the symbols being used for mountain motion/direction, and asking is it “really” necessary. Can we accomplish the desired outcome in a simpler way? It looks like we can.
