Beadweaving tutorials - best practices

[laura]

So.. for the last few days I've been busy writing a tutorial for this pendant:


Beaded bead by Cook On Strike, on Flickr

I took close to a hundred pictures, 77 of those became "steps" and illustrations how things look e.g. after finishing a row.

I've tried to make it really newbie friendly, and I remember that diagrams and mainly text based instructions were much too confusing for me when I started beadweaving. So this time it will be macro photos with short notes. There are 22 pages (not counting cover, materials, and legal stuff) - ain't that too much? :/ I want to keep the photos "readable" so really cannot squeeze them more (there are 4-3 photos per page now).. The only way to reduce the volume would be to dump the photos and draw diagrams..

Another problem - how to "name" the beads in notes? Is it better to give them letter code names in materials list (A, B, G.. and "pick 3A and 1B") or use normal language ("pick 3 green beads and 1 glossy black")?
In this particular project I'm using three kinds of blacks, so it would be "glossy blacks", "tiny blacks" and "large matte blacks".. or letters.. which is more confusing?

And I think I'd like someone to test drive the tutorial? Any non-expert volunteers?

[Renate]

Great poll and question, Laura, and a lovely beaded bead!

I have voted macro photos, but sometimes I prefer graphic sketches, it definitely depends on the quality of both. Some beads do not photograph well, in particular when they are dark. Come to think of it, when it doubt, graphs are better.
And a multiple reply option for the poll would be nice.

For me, a good tutorial has two parts: a general explanation to get an overview what to expect, maybe with graphs, with the somewhat experienced beader in mind, and a detailed, step-by-step section with macro photos for beginners.

Btw, I LOATHE text-only instructions. I'm the visual learner.

I find the code description difficult, but necessary, and I think it may be better than a descriptive instruction with colours/shapes, because it is more general. More likely than not I will make my bead in completely different colours and shapes, then the descriptive instructions would be very confusing.


If you are short of volunteers, I'm game. Even with my short attention span I should be able to finish a beaded bead. ;D

[Tela]

Lovely piece

I voted macros/short text. I do not, at all, like beads labeled 1,2,3, A,B,C etc. I would rather it be called by the color. I get way too confused.

22 pages is long, but if that is what you need to do it, then that is what it is.

I agree with Renate that I like a short overview before you begin.

I would agree to test drive, too, but I don't know if I can make a commitment to the time. If you aren't in a hurry, I can make the piece. If you are in a hurry, I can go over it for general concerns.

Is this your first full blown tute? I know I have seen short ones you've done, but this sounds more comprehensive.

Another thing about length-- Some people are put off long tutes thinking it would be too difficult to do. (intimidating)

[laura]

For me, a good tutorial has two parts: a general explanation to get an overview what to expect, maybe with graphs, with the somewhat experienced beader in mind, and a detailed, step-by-step section

I'm doing that for another tutorial I'm working on - that one is for a bracelet, so the diagram was relatively easy to draw (2D). I'm even considering to dump step-by step photos for that tutorial because diagrams are really clear and easy to understand (for me..)

On this one I'm breaking the process into "sections": making bezel, adding petals, etc and will try to give a short overview to sections where possible (the last steps include too much navigation among the beads to describe it properly)

I find the code description difficult, but necessary, {..}, because it is more general. More likely than not I will make my bead in completely different colours and shapes, then the descriptive instructions would be very confusing.

VS

I do not, at all, like beads labeled 1,2,3, A,B,C etc. I would rather it be called by the color.

That's why I cannot decide which way to go.. and still cannot finish this tute..

Letters make it easier to code-name your own color palette, but color name as-in-photo makes it easier to actually follow the pattern.

Hmm.. How about code names that are somewhere in the middle - glossy black=GB, tiny black=TB, large matte black=LB - the letters stand for colors, but you can assign your own colors to the letters?

Is this your first full blown tute?

Yes, madam Well, the first one that I'm actually about to finish. Have several others that are "almost done"..

Also - I was thinking of adding some markers on photos which are the starting point for each new row (most rows are explained in 3-4 pics). Some fat bubble in the corner or something. Would this make the tute easier to scan, or just introduce more visual clutter and confusion?

[Tela]

Eureka! Yes, I think giving abbreviations would be good! Markers, too.

Maybe a poll about whether or not people print their tutes would be good. I never make a tute with printing in mind-- However, I think my tutes would print well. I sell it as a pdf and expect it to be a pdf, not a printed book. Been thinking of writing a book, though-- at some point.....

[shiny]

I have one (wire) tutorial that is 75 pages. That is too long and I did not print it. Most of the tutorials I own are around 20 pages. I don't think the number of pages are as important as the quality of the instruction. If it takes 25 pages to clearly explain something, go with it.