Can we identify a formula for a deck's readability? (Dare we make the attempt?)

[MandMaud]

Thinking about what makes a deck readable. Can we pool our experiences and come up with a set of criteria for it?

NB: This is about READABILITY NOT LIKEABILITY. Whether you like a deck isn't the point, this is examining whether it's easy to read with and what might make that so.

We already know:

1. Some readers find that disliking the look of a deck doesn't prevent it being very readable. Others find they do need to like it aesthetically. So it follows that aesthetic taste isn't universally a factor.

2. I think personal taste in other characteristics, beyond aesthetics, is equally not a factor. I can imagine finding a deck's "personality" repulsive and yet finding it very readable. (Can't imagine why you'd keep using it if spending time with it was so unpleasant, but maybe someone has had this happen?) So it follows that personal taste in areas other than aesthetic/artistic isn't it either.

3. Many readers find decks which they would have ruled out if they hadn't tried them because of certain characteristics (eg minimalist, detailed, childish, abstract...) in fact speak to them very clearly; sometimes the very same traits in other decks actually make those *less* readable, or make no difference (for the same reader). So it follows that this kind of characteristic (including but much wider thatn whether it's themed)doesn't "make or break" a deck's readability.

4. Many of us, I'd imagine almost all of us, have felt intensely drawn to a deck which we then can't read with. So it follows that this instinctive pull isn't it, at least not on its own.

5. Many readers find that their most readable deck changes over time. This isn't only to do with learning (and I suggest we ignore the cases of finding a deck more readable after coming out of the novice/apprentice stage). So I think it follows that readability does relate in some way to the individual person's own energy signature. (I'm less certain of this conclusion than the other four. Do you agree or am I missing a possibility?)

6. In some cases, a deck that's exceptionally readable for some readers is exceptionally UNreadable for others. So it follows that if there is a common factor that's objective, it's more general than simple "tickbox" traits.

it isn't entirely an objective thing. That is not news! I am hoping we can nevertheless extrapolate some kind of over-arching rule(s). (Call me ambitious.) Of course there's the option of concluding that there really aren't criteria that can be defined, that would be a valid answer, but I'd like to examine all possibilities before resorting to that, or it's a cop-out.

 

[MandMaud]

This question was prompted by GlitterNova's thread about which decks are the most readable for each of us:
http://tarotforum.net/showthread.php?p=4899624#post4899624
I'll copy here the snippet of conversation that led to it:

I wonder what the criteria are - if there are any.

I think that it because we all are different with different energies. For example I can't stand dark decks and to read with them. Someone else won't be able to connect at all to Egypt themed decks or modern decks. Each of us carry a very specific signature that is their key to cards world.

I'm sure that's part of it. But on its own, that implies that a prerequisite for readability is liking (or being able to stand) the deck's aesthetic. Whereas many people say they can read best with a deck they don't like aesthetically - or can't read at all well with decks they are drawn to - visually, by theme, by colour (or "type" of colours eg pastel, dark, whatever)...

Some people are identifying criteria that make a deck readable *for them* - things like clear imagery, warm colours, etc. I'm sure that having the deck's energy gel with the reader's is essential, but I'm wondering if we can pinpoint what's involved in that... since it isn't the aesthetic or the theme, I think we can rule those out to begin with.

Then we should make a list about reader types and energy. I believe energy type and flow plays a very important role in how and with what we read the best.

I am one of those people who likes clear big images, warm colors, etc. But this is not enough. It doesn't guarantees that a deck is readable. I can't put my fingers on it what it does. I know that much that if a deck doesn't impress me (if the images leave me cold) it's much harder for me to read with it than otherwise. Perhaps we can define what makes a deck readable in a thread designed for this question.

I very much doubt we can resolve this! (And I'm not sure I can add much, the thinking above could be my lot. ) But let's have a go.

 

[Nemia]

The main criteria for easy readability I see:

1. the images on the cards evoke a reaction in my imagination (even if I don't like their artistic style),

2. the cards work well with each other, i.e., it's easy to see the dynamic, direction, focus, patterns of a reading.

I call the first criterion the "movie poster factor": I see a card and feel a story behind it. And the second criterion is the "storyboard factor": I see the cards in a layout and the story takes on a distinct shape. That makes the cards readable.

Other factors, like clarity of depiction, expressive use of colours, right measure of symbols (neither too sparse nor overwhelming), deep tarot knowledge of the artist, high artistic quality, strong esoteric foundations etc sound important but in my experience, they are less significant than the first two criteria. A deck can disregard them all and stil be readable.

 

[Barleywine]

Most of the criteria we use are too subjective to support a consensus. A few I can think of that might are:

Regardless of the system of thought that underlies a deck, the cards must remain true to that vision and not turn into a "mish-mash" of conflicting and therefore incoherent ideas. If it's supposed to be a tarot, make it speak like a tarot, not an amalgam of mismatched oracular notions.

A deck must facilitate translation of its images and ideas into meaning that can be communicated with confidence to a sitter. I don't want to be stuttering and scratching my head in the middle of a reading.

The artwork should be clear, on-point and consistent across all of the ranks (Majors, Courts and Minors). No treating the "small" cards as an aesthetic afterthought (unless you're making a traditional TdM deck, where your hands are mostly tied).

The deck must elicit a reaction out of me across a diverse range of impressions. If there's no compelling "sizzle and pop" in its presentation, there will be no intuitive "rush" when I go to read with it.

 

[gregory]

Thinking about what makes a deck readable. Can we pool our experiences and come up with a set of criteria for it?

I'd say a resounding no.

We already know:

I'm not sure we do, actually.

1. Some readers find that disliking the look of a deck doesn't prevent it being very readable. Others find they do need to like it aesthetically. So it follows that aesthetic taste isn't universally a factor.

True

2. I think personal taste in other characteristics, beyond aesthetics, is equally not a factor. I can imagine finding a deck's "personality" repulsive and yet finding it very readable. (Can't imagine why you'd keep using it if spending time with it was so unpleasant, but maybe someone has had this happen?) So it follows that personal taste in areas other than aesthetic/artistic isn't it either.

Also true.

3. Many readers find decks which they would have ruled out if they hadn't tried them because of certain characteristics (eg minimalist, detailed, childish, abstract...) in fact speak to them very clearly; sometimes the very same traits in other decks actually make those *less* readable, or make no difference (for the same reader). So it follows that this kind of characteristic (including but much wider thatn whether it's themed)doesn't "make or break" a deck's readability.

Exactly - I well recall the time I totally dissed a deck I later found read more sharply than almost anything I'd tried that year...

4. Many of us, I'd imagine almost all of us, have felt intensely drawn to a deck which we then can't read with. So it follows that this instinctive pull isn't it, at least not on its own.

Actually - I don't think I've ever felt DRAWN to a deck I couldn't read with....

5. Many readers find that their most readable deck changes over time. This isn't only to do with learning (and I suggest we ignore the cases of finding a deck more readable after coming out of the novice/apprentice stage). So I think it follows that readability does relate in some way to the individual person's own energy signature. (I'm less certain of this conclusion than the other four. Do you agree or am I missing a possibility?)

I don't believe in my energy signature. I don't think it exists.

6. In some cases, a deck that's exceptionally readable for some readers is exceptionally UNreadable for others. So it follows that if there is a common factor that's objective, it's more general than simple "tickbox" traits.

Which is the kind of reason I don't believe there IS a common factor. We all disagree about what we do and don't like at the best of times. I can't even imagine what tickboxes there could be.

it isn't entirely an objective thing. That is not news! I am hoping we can nevertheless extrapolate some kind of over-arching rule(s). (Call me ambitious.) Of course there's the option of concluding that there really aren't criteria that can be defined, that would be a valid answer, but I'd like to examine all possibilities before resorting to that, or it's a cop-out.

I am rather more interested in why you hope to be able to do this. Why does it matter ? I'm really not trying to flatten you to the ground here - but I really cannot see why it makes any differer to anything. Whatever criteria you manage to come up with will be heartily disagreed with by others. You MIGHT manage some kind of formula for a small group of people here - but there is just no way it could ever be any kind of universal thing. If it were possible, I'm sure it would have happened before now.

 

[MandMaud]

The main criteria for easy readability I see:

1. the images on the cards evoke a reaction in my imagination (even if I don't like their artistic style),

2. the cards work well with each other, i.e., it's easy to see the dynamic, direction, focus, patterns of a reading.

I call the first criterion the "movie poster factor": I see a card and feel a story behind it. And the second criterion is the "storyboard factor": I see the cards in a layout and the story takes on a distinct shape. That makes the cards readable.

Other factors, like clarity of depiction, expressive use of colours, right measure of symbols (neither too sparse nor overwhelming), deep tarot knowledge of the artist, high artistic quality, strong esoteric foundations etc sound important but in my experience, they are less significant than the first two criteria. A deck can disregard them all and stil be readable.

This tallies with my own observations but I hadn't put my finger on those two factors. I like your names for them!

This is hopeful! Exactly the kind of thinking I was hoping to prompt.

 

[MandMaud]

Most of the criteria we use are too subjective to support a consensus. A few I can think of that might are:

Regardless of the system of thought that underlies a deck, the cards must remain true to that vision and not turn into a "mish-mash" of conflicting and therefore incoherent ideas. If it's supposed to be a tarot, make it speak like a tarot, not an amalgam of mismatched oracular notions.

Yes, certainly I'd agree.

Has anyone found a deck readable that doesn't have this coherence? Examples please!

A deck must facilitate translation of its images and ideas into meaning that can be communicated with confidence to a sitter. I don't want to be stuttering and scratching my head in the middle of a reading.

Indeed... but isn't this the definition of readability? "must facilitate translation of its images and ideas into meaning that can be communicated with confidence" - we're trying to pin down what this consists of.

must facilitate translation of its images and ideas into meaning that can be communicated with confidence The artwork should be clear, on-point and consistent across all of the ranks (Majors, Courts and Minors). No treating the "small" cards as an aesthetic afterthought (unless you're making a traditional TdM deck, where your hands are mostly tied).[/quote]
OK, but since some readers find TdM style *most* readable, I don't agree that this consistency of artwork/imagery is a criterion.

The deck must elicit a reaction out of me across a diverse range of impressions. If there's no compelling "sizzle and pop" in its presentation, there will be no intuitive "rush" when I go to read with it.

By elicit a reaction, do you mean an emotional response? Or some other kind?

I wonder if the emotional response is indeed a requisite. Or some other kind.

 

[MandMaud]

I'd say a resounding no.
I'm not sure we do, actually.

Actually - I don't think I've ever felt DRAWN to a deck I couldn't read with....

Maybe not - but I've seen many people say they did. In the other direction, it does seem to happen all the time.

I don't believe in my energy signature. I don't think it exists.

Which is the kind of reason I don't believe there IS a common factor. We all disagree about what we do and don't like at the best of times. I can't even imagine what tickboxes there could be.

I put it better last night:

But also, bear in mind this isn't about do/don't like, only about can/can't read easily.

I am rather more interested in why you hope to be able to do this. Why does it matter ? I'm really not trying to flatten you to the ground here - but I really cannot see why it makes any differer to anything.

It doesn't. Idle academic curiosity! And it's fun to provoke discussion. And it came up in that other thread, felt right to open it to more people.

Whatever criteria you manage to come up with will be heartily disagreed with by others.

No doubt.

 

[gregory]

But also, bear in mind this isn't about do/don't like, only about can/can't read easily.

I know. And since the day someone persuaded me to read with that execrable Deck of Heroes (and I have even done the Power Animals, heaven help us) I have been convinced that it isn't that hard to read with anything if you (generic) just let yourself do it instead of wondering if it will work for you.

Those HORRIBLE Heroes actually delivered big time. They weren't hard to read with at all, but I didn't expect decent feedback, just the same.

 

[Barleywine]

Yes, certainly I'd agree.

Has anyone found a deck readable that doesn't have this coherence? Examples please!

The Chrysalis Tarot is one recent example that is presented as tarot but really reads best as an oracle. Many of the changes in symbolism confuse the genres as far as I'm concerned.

By elicit a reaction, do you mean an emotional response? Or some other kind?

I wonder if the emotional response is indeed a requisite. Or some other kind.

The range of impressions I mentioned included intellectual, emotional, aesthetic, visceral (which might be evocative in a number of ways: gritty, dreamy, quirky, anything that gets "under the skin" of my consciousness and stays there).