How are you doing with the Lacy Cable Scallop Edging used in this month’s learn-along project for Summer Lace Anklets? If you are using the charted instructions, you are getting more practice using a chart that incorporates the “no stitch” symbol like we introduced in the Lace Cable Bookmark project.
The chart included in the Summer Lace Anklets pattern looks like this:
Chart for Lacy Cable Scallop Edging in the "no stitch" style
The use of “no stitch” symbols in the chart above helps to preserve the stitch alignment of the p2 columns. However, it is not obvious on this lace edging chart that there is a shaped edge, or whether it is on the left or right edge of the chart. This is because the shaping of the edge is actually done with decreases interior to the pattern stitch.
Here is another style of charting this same Lacy Cable Scallop Edging that clearly indicates which edge of the lace edging is the straight one vs. the shaped one.
Chart for Lacy Cable Scallop Edging in the "shaped edge" style
However, because “no stitch” symbols are not used, the stitch alignment of the p2 columns is no longer obvious.
Bottom line — there are trade-offs in each charting style. What is your preference and why?
HeartStrings FiberArts
Knitting Bits of Lace on Facebook
Ravelry Store
I have to go with the first example for 2 reasons:
(1) I’m used to working with these charts, and
(2) the chart gives a fairly good idea of what the knitted item will look like.
Janet
The first chart, ABSOLUTELY! It’s much easier to follow the stitch pattern! The pattern is aligned as the actual knitting should be. I’m afraid I would get awfully frustrated trying to follow the second chart.
Pingback: The Best Charting Style is ... ? | Knit HeartStrings
I’m partial to the second version as well. I have worked with charts that show the blank spaces, but at times that can get confusing. With out the “no-stitch” blocks, it is easier to see the pattern, but I agree, both styles have their advantages and disadvantages.
I much prefer the first charting method with the “no stitch” squares primarily because there is a direct relationship between the current row with what stitch manipulations were used on the prior rows (or rounds). When knitting, I am “painting” a design and depend on the visual references of the prior rows – I read my knitting as I work. Thus, a chart that reflects this same vision works best for me.
I like the second chart better, as it shows me exactly what my piece should look like. I think the no stitch squares are confusing.
Caroline
With grey “dummy squares” hands down. Here’s a tutorial I wrote about their use and the reason for using them: http://www.string-or-nothing.com/2005/11/02/CHARTING103THESTITCHTHATISNTTHERE.aspx
Hope this is useful, -k.
I like the second because of the constant visual reminder of what my piece should
look like.
I like the first because of the lines under the row numbers so your eye more easily follows the number to the actual row.
In the end I would use the second and use a sticky note or highlighter to keep my eye on the right row.
I also knit lots of lace.
I like the visual reminder because after a while my mind knows what to look for and I can sometimes knit the pattern by heart intuitively from the visual of the chart.
I totally agree with you, Denise! Thanks for saying it so well. -Nan
first chart hands down. it’s neat, gives you a picture of what you are knitting, and the numbers can be helpful. i’ve used the other charting sytle and it takes more thinking to look back when checking your work. i tend to knit lace for hours at a time in the evening and clarity in charting is the most important factor for me. thanks for the discussion and good examples.
I guess i am a very visual person. and i think i am an ordered person; i can get easily overwhelmed by what seems to me as ‘messiness’ in the stitch pattern. So much so, i might even get put off from doing it! So i like the first chart because i can compare it to what is going on in my knitting. I wonder if with the first chart, would the designer mention that the edges would end up scallopy? I would guess they would OR it would at least be obvious from the pattern photo?
You asked: “I wonder if with the first chart, would the designer mention that the edges would end up scallopy? I would guess they would OR it would at least be obvious from the pattern photo?”
The first chart style is what is included in the pdf file for this month’s project pattern. It is a “yes” to both your questions. Both the written and charted instructions for the lace edging are refer to a Scallop edging. And the photo on the cover page shows how the edging is scalloped.
You made a good point that good pattern instructions do not rely solely on one way of communicating. So, the trade-offs in the first chart can be compensated by “queues” in other parts of the pattern (like the descriptions and photos).
So given that, are you still leaning toward the preference of the first chart style?
I find the first one much easier to follow. I’ve never run across one written like the second, so it would ‘confuse the eye” more for me.
nice article!
Since the “no stitch” happens inside the lace row, the first chart better represents the lace patterns. I keep my chart row ruler above my place in the chart, so I can look at the previous row to be sure I am working the correct stitch. If the edging was where the count changed, like a lace that increases along, then has a cast off edge, I would like the second chart better. Preserving the vertical stitch alignment is the best visual of the lace chart.
I’m stuck between both. I’ve worked with both styles and still haven’t made up my mind which one is better for me.
I do like the stitches lining up in the top chart, but I do like knowing which side the edging pattern will be created on. I’m a visual person and I tend to tink back a lot, so the top pattern would make it easier to see where I went wrong, but then again, the bottom chart would show me what it’s supposed to look like. Gah!
See? that’s what I mean about being stuck between both.
My preference is the first — it is important for every pattern to line up so you can locate an error if someone brings you one for help. Decoding the shaped edge style pattern at times obscures the error when it is a “no stitch” that has been worked.
I agree with Kat – the extra grid lines create the impression of additional stitches to be worked. Row numbering is helpful, but absolutely should not be part of the working grid for any any pattern.
I prefer the top one as I think it gives a clearer picture of what your stitching will look like when done, I don’t think the second one shows that at all…easier to count the stitches to make sure you’ve got the right amount and that you’re lining up properly…
Either style works great..It just depends whether you are a person who visually wants the pattern to line up or else see which side has the pattern edge. Have done both and have no problem with either.
I prefer the first. I realize that you can’t see the shape of the edge but you do see the shape of the lace pattern. And when checking to make sure that the pattern is lining up correctly the ability to run up a column and check that yarn overs and decreases are where they’re supposed to be is very valuable.
Following the second chart I’d be looking for the decrease in row 4 to line up over the yarn overs which appear to be lining up in lines 2 and 3… none of which actually line up that way in the knitted piece. I find that more confusing than a shaped edge that emerges as you knit.
I kind of agree with Kat about the grid around the row numbers, but once you train your brain to not knit the numbers, it is easier to be sure which row you are on. And it is nice to see the shape of your work in the graph like the second one. But in the long run, how the stitches line up from one row to the next is is very important information if you have to tink back a lot (like I do). One of the first things I learned about lace was the idea that the shape of the edge is usually made before the edge rows, and will come out with blocking. I spend a lot of time pulling on the stitches to make sure there is a shape taking place. I just fascinates me!
I can work with either chart, however, most of the charts I’ve worked with are the first type when each row stitch is aligned with the one above. I think this is the easier of the two for anyone that is just beginning to do any lace knitting from charts.
I’m *very very* opinionated about this. 🙂
The no-stitch symbols in the first style show how the stitches will line up, which is think is pretty darn important. If the chart doesn’t represent the knitting as it will look when finished, what’s the point of having the chart?
I detest (yes, with the passion of a thousand burning suns) the extra grid lines beyond the actual stitches on the top chart–it adds visual clutter and makes charts MUCH more intimidating. It also makes it more confusing, as the visual start and end of the stitch pattern is almost obliterated.
(Told you I was opinionated. LOL!)
I actually prefer the second method. It gives me a better idea of what the pattern looks like when knit.