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

[CrystalSeas]

Because I spend hours on the net trying to figure out if a deck I see there would be readable or not.
(maybe if we find a 'magic formula' that will help people (including me) to decide quicker)

It might be useful for you to create a formula that works for you that you could share with the rest of us.

Once the formula is established, and you have laid out how you measure each of the variables and what weight you give them in the formula, then others could simply adjust the weights to fit their own preferences.

If there IS a single formula that works for everyone (or even most people), then you will be able to discover the variables and the measuring tools just through introspection. Your own formula will obviously contain exactly the same variables as the more universal formula.

And you will be able to describe the ways you measure each of the variables. How do you measure whether a deck has 'more' or 'less' of a particular variable than another deck?

We're not even talking about an interval number line here; we're only describing ordinal measurements of the variables (y > x; x>z, a=b)

If there is actually such a formula, then your own personal formula will demonstrate a particular example of the more universal formula and we will all be able to create our own personal formula simply by weighting the variables differently

 

[Grizabella]

I agree that we can make up our own criteria that makes US able to read with a certain deck, but it's not something that can be standardized to fit other people's criteria with any degree of accuracy.

I can look at a deck's style as pictured here in the Tarot Decks section and know whether I'd enjoy using the deck or not without seeing any of the other cards in the deck. But I can read with just about any deck of whatever style it is and whatever the art work style so a deck I'd rate as being readable and meeting other positive criteria wouldn't matter for others. New readers wouldn't benefit by my rating of a deck's readability because I've been using the cards long enough that I can read.

A good example is the Bonefire. I love the deck, find it extremely readable, I love the art work and the new book, and yet, in the last day or so, I've seen opinions directly opposite to my own. If the standardized rating system gave this deck a thumb's down if I were just browsing decks with a rating system that gave them a bad rap, then I'd miss out on what's one of my very most enjoyable and readable decks.

 

[MandMaud]

Hi again!

I'm really sorry to have dropped this thread again. I can't keep up with it! It's too productive, interesting and sparking ideas! But I hope it will still sit around and provoke discussion from time to time. I'm pretty sure I won't be able to "attend to" it as much as I'd like to.

 

[MandMaud]

But I am getting stuck because I noticed that some decks that a few years ago I found unreadable (more or less) I find completely readable now. That means there is a huge personal factor as well as one's evolution as a reader. That surely complicates finding a 'rule'. To find a 'rule' that would apply to most I think we have to leave out ('rule out', ha, ha) ALL the personal factors that makes a deck readable.

Good point. Either you're right and we must leave out all the personal factors, as you say - or we can generalise about those factors? Getting too many layers deep, probably. For example something like traits that connect with the reader's life experience... I'd love to know if aesthetic response is somehow related to readability but I imagine it would involve huge experimental psychology studies, comparable to the research that's done for marketing, how colours and music etc affect our buying impulses... well beyond the scope of anyone I know.

I'm thinking, also, it must relate to the reader's experience(s) with reading. How much experience, and what correlations etc they've come across and dreamt up.

What remains then is what has been already stated in the previous posts:
- to visibly follow a system (thoth/rws/marseille) (JadePixie) otherwise I couldn't consider it a tarot deck but an oracle
- to has symbolic/semiotic visual clues (JadePixie)
- the images on the cards to evoke a reaction in people's imagination (even if they don't like their artistic style) (MandMaud) The card has to be visually expressive (and impressive! ha, ha)(I get bored easily with those deck that fail to impress me)
- the cards has to work well with each other, i.e., it's easy to see the dynamic, direction, focus, patterns of a reading. (MandMaud) (I'd add the uniformity of the artwork and fluidity but that could be a personal preference only)

I think the uniformity of the artwork probably is a personal thing, as you suspect. I don't agree with you on requiring a system, either; I suspect people who really don't learn any system and so their reading is 100% intuitive, probably still have some subliminal consistency going on without knowing it, which would qualify as a system although they'd reject the assertion. I don't know if anyone really does read the cards without any system but I've seen some inexperienced readers on AT declared that they do (and my ex refused to learn any basics, claiming he'd do it purely by intuition, but then didn't pursue the interest so I can't call him a fair example). ... Beginning to sound like I do agree on a system after all! Oh well.

That's a LOT to ask from a deck made of 78(!) cards! I believe any deck that complains with these requirements would be well readable for most people. Or would it?!

I think probably! Of course 'visually expressive' will vary for different people - but I should think that if you gave people a survey rating characteristics of a deck they knew, and they scored it low on visual expressiveness, that would correlate with low readability.

 

[MandMaud]

Why might we be trying to judge decks and find a rating system? Would it be so we could create a rating system for decks that would apply to all decks and all readers in a handbook or something?

Because I spend hours on the net trying to figure out if a deck I see there would be readable or not.
(maybe if we find a 'magic formula' that will help people (including me) to decide quicker)

Some creators might be interested in these discussions.

Most probably we won't find the magic formula , but these talks make us reflect for ourselves; are interesting; I am interested in other people's point of views; and, last but not least, AT members are tarot fun people and like talking about tarot and sharing their thought about a topic or another

That's why. For fun!

 

[MandMaud]

I'm with gregory. I don't think it could be done.

I'm rapidly coming to that conclusion. Couldn't be done in practice - I was hoping to establish whether it could be done in theory. Like meteorology, there's a consistent, never-broken set of rules (physics) governing exactly which raindrop falls exactly where. But we aren't in a position to observe the beating of the butterfly's wings on the far side of the world, and measure the weight and surface tension of each raindrop while it's in the cloud before it falls, so we can't explain its exact landing. However it isn't "magic" (in the child's usage of the word) or random, in the stricter sense of random.

 

[MandMaud]

It might be useful for you to create a formula that works for you that you could share with the rest of us.

Once the formula is established, and you have laid out how you measure each of the variables and what weight you give them in the formula, then others could simply adjust the weights to fit their own preferences.

If there IS a single formula that works for everyone (or even most people), then you will be able to discover the variables and the measuring tools just through introspection. Your own formula will obviously contain exactly the same variables as the more universal formula.

And you will be able to describe the ways you measure each of the variables. How do you measure whether a deck has 'more' or 'less' of a particular variable than another deck?

We're not even talking about an interval number line here; we're only describing ordinal measurements of the variables (y > x; x>z, a=b)

If there is actually such a formula, then your own personal formula will demonstrate a particular example of the more universal formula and we will all be able to create our own personal formula simply by weighting the variables differently

Good thinking. That would work, I think - for those wanting to use it, and/or join in puzzling it out.

 

[MandMaud]

I can look at a deck's style as pictured here in the Tarot Decks section and know whether I'd enjoy using the deck or not without seeing any of the other cards in the deck. But I can read with just about any deck of whatever style it is and whatever the art work style so a deck I'd rate as being readable and meeting other positive criteria wouldn't matter for others. New readers wouldn't benefit by my rating of a deck's readability because I've been using the cards long enough that I can read.

A good example is the Bonefire. I love the deck, find it extremely readable, I love the art work and the new book, and yet, in the last day or so, I've seen opinions directly opposite to my own. If the standardized rating system gave this deck a thumb's down if I were just browsing decks with a rating system that gave them a bad rap, then I'd miss out on what's one of my very most enjoyable and readable decks.

I can look at a few examples and know whether I'll enjoy the artwork, definitely - but I can't forecast whether I'll find the deck readable. I've made some dreadful mistakes.

I'm sure that hands-on experience with numerous decks over a long time must help. I've only "met" about a dozen in person and got to know maybe 4-5 really well. That isn't nearly enough to develop a feel for what will work for me. Just as meeting a dozen people and getting to know a handful well, with all the surprises and corrections of first impressions that will happen, isn't going to give one a feel for who can be trusted.

For choosing, if I let myself buy any more decks (I *always* resolve never to buy another ), maybe I'll give up trying to feel whether the deck calls me or not, and start getting other people to read for me on the purchase before I make it.