#Unbound Proof Copy

[table-cat-games]

I got in an unbound copy of Street Wolves for proofing. It really looks great. I can't wait to see it all bound up in book form.

[literaticat]

Would an editor tell an author they read they novel proof or their ARC? What terminology would they use in conversation, esp in the UK? Thank you.

I have never been an editor, here or in the UK! And though I have technically been in the UK whilst being an Agent, I can't say that ever came up.

In the US (which is the only country I feel comfortable making declarations about), most publishing people / booksellers say ARCs and Galleys interchangeably, and both those things are uncorrected proofs.

It's my understanding that in the UK, they mostly just say "proofs".

There is technically a slight difference between all those things, though! In the US, anyway:

A PROOF (or galley, or galley proof, or first page proof, or 1pp, or uncorrected page proof, or some version of something similar to that) is the publisher's first typeset page proof, ie, it isn't a manuscript in a word document anymore, it is a bunch of pages that look like the insides of a real book, but there still may be errors, etc.

A BOUND GALLEY, usually just called a galley, is that self-same galley proof, but with a paper binding so it looks like a book, usually with a plain/generic looking cover, that is sometimes sent out for review, etc -- it is the same thing as an ARC, but without cover art.

An ARC or ARE (depending on the publisher) is a bound galley, but with cover art that may or may not be final, as well as jacket copy, author info, possibly a marketing plan, etc. You can tell it isn't an actual paperback book because it says all over it NOT FINAL / NOT FOR SALE / UNCORRECTED PROOF / etc.

So all ARCS are, technically, also bound galleys, and are made of galley proofs. All bound galleys are made of galley proofs but are not ARCS. And unbound galley proofs are neither bound galleys nor ARCS.

DID THAT JUST MAKE IT MORE CONFUSING? lol

Long story short: I guess an editor would say "I read the proof" in the UK, and "I read the ARC" or "I read the galley" or something similar in the US. Or they might just say YES, I READ YOUR BOOK!

[vincentispossiblydead]

y-you're so skibidi sigma 🥺👉👈🚽🚽

yes.

Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia behind a veil of Congressionally imposed secrecy in June 1776 for a country wracked by military and political uncertainties. In anticipation of a vote for independence, the Continental Congress on June 11 appointed Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston as a committee to draft a declaration of independence. The committee then delegated Thomas Jefferson to undertake the task. Jefferson worked diligently in private for days to compose a document. Proof of the arduous nature of the work can be seen in the fragment of the first known composition draft of the declaration, which is on public display here for the first time.

Jefferson then made a clean or "fair" copy of the composition declaration, which became the foundation of the document, labeled by Jefferson as the "original Rough draught." Revised first by Adams, then by Franklin, and then by the full committee, a total of forty-seven alterations including the insertion of three complete paragraphs was made on the text before it was presented to Congress on June 28. After voting for independence on July 2, the Congress then continued to refine the document, making thirty-nine additional revisions to the committee draft before its final adoption on the morning of July 4. The "original Rough draught" embodies the multiplicity of corrections, additions and deletions that were made at each step. Although most of the alterations are in Jefferson's handwriting (Jefferson later indicated the changes he believed to have been made by Adams and Franklin), quite naturally he opposed many of the changes made to his document.

Congress then ordered the Declaration of Independence printed and late on July 4, John Dunlap, a Philadelphia printer, produced the first printed text of the Declaration of Independence, now known as the "Dunlap Broadside." The next day John Hancock, the president of the Continental Congress, began dispatching copies of the Declaration to America's political and military leaders. On July 9, George Washington ordered that his personal copy of the "Dunlap Broadside," sent to him by John Hancock on July 6, be read to the assembled American army at New York. In 1783 at the war's end, General Washington brought his copy of the broadside home to Mount Vernon. This remarkable document, which has come down to us only partially intact, is accompanied in this exhibit by a complete "Dunlap Broadside"—one of only twenty-four known to exist.

On July 19, Congress ordered the production of an engrossed (officially inscribed) copy of the Declaration of Independence, which attending members of the Continental Congress, including some who had not voted for its adoption, began to sign on August 2, 1776. This document is on permanent display at the National Archives.

On July 4, 1995, more than two centuries after its composition, the Declaration of Independence, just as Jefferson predicted on its fiftieth anniversary in his letter to Roger C. Weightman, towers aloft as "the signal of arousing men to burst the chains...to assume the blessings and security of self-government" and to restore "the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion."

source: https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/declara3.html

[thecurioustale]

This reminds me of the time I didn't know anything about anything, and was co-editor-in-chief of my high school's literary magazine, and went to the print shop on campus on the last week of the school year and asked "Can you print our literary magazine?" and the dude just said "No."

(In my defense, at home, it took only a few minutes to print out a magazine's worth of pages on the trusty laser printer. I just assumed you multiply that by a few dozen and get a lead time of like one or two days.)

I still have the unbound proof copy that I printed myself. It's probably the last copy in the world.

(Roughly) how long is the time between pencils down on a set and it’s release?

This is far from the part I work on, so I’m giving my best guess.

It depends what you mean by “pencils down”. R&D uses that term when a file goes from set design to editing. Only editing can change the file from that point forward, but changes can still get made. That’s maybe 9 months out.

Then there’s a point where nothing can change, once editing hands off to the team that preps the set for printing. Nothing normally can change past that point. There is the ability to make an emergency change, but it’s risky (it can add mistakes) and has financial ramifications, so the bar is quite high. That’s roughly 6 months from print.

[sam-onebookishgirl]

Stacking The Shelves is hosted at Tynga’s Reviews and is all about sharing the books you are adding to your shelves, may it be physical or virtual. This means you can include books you buy in physical store or online, books you borrow from friends or the library, review books, gifts and of course ebooks!

So, I have tried to include all my new books since my previous post… I think I may have a problem!! Lol. 

eBooks…

So continuing my request spree, I am still being approved for books….

You Are Not You by Simon Rosenberg

The Moor by Sam Haysom

The Affair by Sheryl Browne 

I also got a copy of The Pool House by Tasmina Perry, it was free from Hachette Aus.

Physical Books… 

I received some amazing book mail that I can’t wait to read! The books I received are… 

The Biggerers by Amy Lilwall

All the Hidden Truths by Claire Askew

Seven Ancient Wonders by Matthew Reilly – This was my Telle Tales Secret Santa!! 

That’s Not What Happened by Kody Keplinger

Nine Perfect Strangers by Liane Moriarty!!!!

Before Her Eyes by Jack Jordan

How to be Perfect by Holly Wainwright

Toxic by Nicci Cloke

My Heart Goes Bang by Keris Stainton

Bridge of Clay by Markus Zusak!!!

The Darkest Legacy by Alexandra Bracken

Open Road Summer by Emery Lord!!! 

I also found a book sale and bought;

Ashley Bell by Dean Koontz, I just adore this cover!!

Orphan X by Gregg Hurwitz

The Lake House by Kate Morton

How gorgeous are they all!! 

How was your week? Were you good and not buy / request any books or did you splurge and request binge? Have you read any of the books I’ve picked up?

Stacking the Shelves Sunday… Come share all the books you have added to your shelves, may it be physical or virtual. Stacking The Shelves is hosted at Tynga’s Reviews and is all about sharing the books you are adding to your shelves, may it be physical or virtual.

[lastcrystalwitch]

Competing with Drugs

It really sucks when you have friends who use drugs. Eventually, when they get addicted, they will make the choice to choose the drugs, over you. Or they will overdose and end up in the hospital, or in a casket. That is the truth of it. Many people don't want to hear it, but there it is. The cold hard truth.

Making friends isn't easy for me. I'm such a trusting person. I get hurt easily, but out of everything that has ever happened between two people, drug and alcohol abuse takes the cake. The metaphorical cake that is all the happiness and trust in a relationship. With drugs and alcohol that cake turns to rotten mess of maggots.

Truth is, there's never a good enough reason to take drugs. After seeing the danger that is a mean machine, drug abuse is something that is serious. Deadly serious. I've talked to many people who are between 25-30. They said that their high school friend group, best friends and buddies from school. They always used to hang out together. Most of them are dead now. There are only a handful of survivors from my friends friend group. 4 left out of 11. That's a lot of deaths. That's a lot of grief, waking up in the morning and getting a phone call, or finding out on social media that your best friend is dead.

Its crushing. Overdose is just another form of suicide. And after one suicide happens, many people think to themselves that it was their fault. That is an irrational thought. The dead person who overdosed knew that it could kill them, and either intentionally or accidentally took too much, and died. Now their friends and family are left with a heart wrenching grief that will take years to come to terms with and accept.

After my brother in law hung himself in my living room, right after my cousin by marriage shot himself in the head, I was thinking about suicide. The two happened only 48 hours apart. Less than that actually, I think. And many of the family were talking about suicide, making death pacts. It was overall an extremely unhealthy way of thinking. And the problem with it is, you can't ever tell that person that your mad at them.

A lot of thoughts stir around in your head when something like this happens.

And they're heavy thoughts. Deep. They get their claws into your soul and holds on.

I spent my high school and college years away from drug usage. I didn't want to do anything with anyone if I knew that they were doing drugs. I knew that I didn't want to get wrapped up in that. I didn't want to watch my friends die. I had a goal to get a Bachelors Degree, so I could make a lot of money doing art. Unfortunately a Bachelors of Art in Game Art & Design, might just be the most useless degree out there. It doesn't translate over to any other field really. One mistake that cost me 120,000.

With that price, I should be telling kids to get off my lawn. Get it? 120,000 and I could have had my own quaint little house.

I would still encourage my kids to go to college. Actually, If they were good with their hands, I would have sent them to a trade school. Trades are in a lack of people right now, and if you don't mind making bucko-bucks, going inside and outside, trade schools might be for you.

But right now, I'm dealing with family and friends abusing drugs. Some say that doing drugs helps them feel closer to the people who overdosed and died. That's like hurting yourself because your copying someone else hurting themselves. It Does Not Make Sense. Its what psychologists call irrational thoughts. Thoughts that do not make sense, that people can tell themselves to believe no matter what.

And by the Gods, this is a difficult subject.

But if you do try drugs, you're going to get addicted. You're going to be addicted, and never have any money. You will be in poverty. If you get addicted, say goodbye to being happy because as long as you are addicted you are injuring your body. I've seen what meth can do to kidneys. It makes them start shutting down.

Drugs make you lie. I work for the courts, and drug test people. I have had people lie right to my face about what drugs they take, when I am the second one ever to see their lab results come back when they test positive for drugs. I know what they took.

I have seen people lose their family. Women have picked drugs over their kids. They couldn't stop for whatever reason and lost their homes, their cars, their husbands, their kids. I have seen alcoholics be court ordered to take their car into a mechanic, and get a machine installed, that forces them to do an alcohol test to make sure they aren't driving drunk, because they can't stop trying to put other peoples lives at risk because they can't stop drinking. They are selfish and don't think about how they could be driving and kill someone in a car crash because of their own bad decisions. All these people have are excuses. Bullshit excuses and irrational thoughts. They smile and tell you their tale. And all while they lie.

I paint drug abusers and users in the same category. Bad.

Because it is. I've seen first hand how your heart gets torn out when everyone around you is grieving and falling to pieces over a loved ones suicide, that was linked to drug and alcohol abuse, emotional abuse, and unchecked and unbounded mental health problems. You can lie to yourself, and listen to your friends as they tell you its not all that bad. It makes them feel pretty good actually.

Sure, in the moment, drugs can make you feel pretty good. Alcohol goes for the same way. It can make you feel pretty damn good.

But not only are you poisoning your body with alcohol, damaging your kidneys and making your organs work double time, but you're going to become irresponsible. I see it more times than not with teens that survive into adult hood. They want to feel really good so they hide their problems and run away from them by turning to drugs and alcohol. They get drunk, have a good time, have a hang over that lasts for a day, and usually call into work, wasting their bosses time and making the employees and coworkers suffer by having to pick up the slack.

And your own happiness comes first absolutely. But at the expense of other people's happiness? That's pretty fricking selfish. And I have been the one who called out of work because I had a hang over. And I regret calling out. But even more so, I regret drinking when I had to knowingly work the next day. That was just stupid. I knew what would happen, and somehow made it feel like I was the one people should be feeling sorry for. Feel bad for me, give me easy things to do, I have a hangover. People like that don't deserve special treatment. People like that deserve to get punished for their actions. If you put your hand on the hot grill, you know its going to be hot. Why act surprised when you get burnt? Why be surprised when you have everyone pissed at you at work the next day because your dragging ass, because of something you did intentionally without being responsible. Its just irresponsible.

Doing that is like knowing its bad, and doing it anyway. Be a woman about it though. Take responsibilities for your own actions. You want to drink the day before? Go for it. You'll only make others around you pissed that you're not feeling well enough to work if you decide to power through the hang over, and you will absolutely hate yourself. The migraine and vomiting that promises to follow will ensure you feel like shit. But I don't feel bad for people who do this, because they are knowingly doing it to themselves. It was self inflicted.

I'm tired of holding someone's body over a toilet, watching them convulse and slip into shock because they drank a half gallon of 80 proof whiskey, while I hold their body up with mine and wonder if they are going to be the next person to die in my house. Will I have enough time to call for the ambulance? What if they stop breathing in their sleep. At this point the person was completely blacked out and unresponsive. I'd ask them their name and they wouldn't even be able to respond. It is SO scary. Its traumatic too. Traumatic means the you can have PTS (formerly known as PTSD) episodes about it because if you've already lost one person or more to suicide, it is easy for others to adopt that mindset and follow it. You have to fight it.

So that's what I'm doing guys. I'm fighting it. And it hurts because I see the people I love ... LOVE ... hurting themselves and those around them by their alcoholism and drug use. And I feel like I am going to wake up one day ... and I'll get that call. I'll get that call that I really don't want to get saying that they died. I don't want to get that call. I don't want any more of my friends to die. I don't want my family members to die.

So I fight. By doing the only thing I can. Telling others that I love them, and that they should talk to someone. I feel like no one listens to me. All I hear excuses. People standing behind what makes them weak instead of facing the facts and being responsible.

Seek counseling. I married a man whos getting a Masters in Counseling. That's 6-8 years of college. He knows what the frick he's talking about. I know a little bit too because I help him study. Go talk to someone. Not your buddy, but a professional. They're are different styles of counseling out there and no two counselors are exactly the same. Look up Gestalt vs. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. Two huge differences.

And maybe you've found a counselor in the past that didn't listen to you, or you didn't like. Go get a second opinion. Do you marry the first man you date, and then give up on love completely when it doesn't work out? Of course not. That would be an irrational thought. The first counselor I went to didn't work out for me, so I'm never trusting them again. Irrational thought. A thought that actually, sorry to say, does not make sense. I've had some shit doctors. Not all doctors are created equal. Not all counselors are created equal. I can only recommend my own doctors, and counselors, psychologists and psychiatrist.

And did you know? Counselors and therapists cannot help their own friends and family. Its against the rules. Rule number 1) if you give advise to someone and it doesn't work out, especially if that is a family member, you've just ruined your trust and relationship with that person. That person might never trust you again, when you were only trying to help. 2) It weighs on the counselor. Conflict of interest due to personalities involved. Keeping secrets weighs on you. Did you know that ALL therapists and ALL counselors are encouraged by their peers, and other professionals to have their own therapist that they can talk to? Its a heavy line of work, emotionally. Respect.

That's what my husband is dealing with right now. We have had 4 deaths from suicide and overdose within a year. All close family. I've had friends who've lost just as many. 2020-2021 wasn't for the faint of heart, like me. Who is trying to not take everyone else's problems on as her own.

But that is where the inner conflict happens.

I want others to be happy. Codependent issues. I'm working on that.

All I can do is give good advise to those I love, and take care of myself. It just sucks watching them destroy themselves. It hurts.

[youngbutcapableproject]

Post Campaign Update 33! Hard Proof Received and Approved!

This is so exciting! I can now hold a copy of the book in my hands and so will you soon!

This update would have been made a week or two ago but I had a small misunderstanding with the printer on the proofing process; they sent me an unbound version originally. The requested bound version has now been received and approved! 

Have some photos!

This would also be a very good time to email with your confirmed physical address, if you backed for a tier that includes a physical book! An additional email from the below address will also be sent to you. I want to send out packages as soon as I receive the book order, so don't wait!

Email americankestrelprojects@gmail.com .

 Thank you again for everything!

[loturazine]

Hi, I was wondering what store you went through to publish your zine? That cover with the black and gold is gorgeous 😍 I wanted to make a collection of pieces for my dad’s birthday and put them in a book like that, so any info would be much appreciated ☺️

Oh!! I’m so glad you asked, I have been absolutely delighted to work with these people. 

The company is Edition One - http://www.editiononebooks.com/

I need to gush briefly about how amazing the company is.  They’re based in the US - I don’t know if that matters to you - but they worked very closely with me about different adjustments to sizing, bleed, color, etc when I sent them the files. They were so patient - as a fic writer, this was totally a foreign concept for me and they explained everything - as opposed to just “printing what I sent and assuming I wanted it that way on purpose.”

They have a huge swath of options from foil stamping, to hardbound, either printed or linen, soft cover, paper type... all in pretty much any custom size.  You’re not tethered to standard page sizes.

They also send you an unbound printed proof, not just a digital one.  Within three days of finishing up all the suggestions they gave me, I had a well-packed sleeve with actual-size prints of all the pages.  (You can see them in the teased images here: https://loturazine.tumblr.com/post/190765110380/update-210-with-pictures )

I’ll tell you a secret, I was worried when working on this zine that it wouldn’t have the quality we promised or that I would make a mistake with it.  Edition One’s representative was right there with me every step of the way and as soon as they gave me suggestions I knew I was in good hands, and that they wouldn’t just print something of sub-par quality.

Worth noting - I did not see the cover until they sent the finished copies to me - the proof does not include the cover, so I was just overwhelmed with being impressed when I saw it. They did amazing.

I worked with a different representative for the NSFW zine with the same attention to detail.  I am super happy to work with them and would absolutely do so again.

Another thing - there IS a 5-book minimum for hardbound, but no apparent minimum for softcover.  We liked this group because several printers sometimes want as many as 50-100 books for a minimum order, but this one doesn’t. (I don’t know if foil stamping is an option for soft cover, but I definitely recommend reaching out to them to inquire; they seem really flexible.)

In short, 100/10 would recommend them for pretty much any project you might want, deeply satisfied with both their product and their customer service.

Thanks for asking, and good luck with your project!

For reference, we selected the Linen-wrapped, “Asterox-B Cloth” in “Black” with the foil option of “shiny gold” - if you’re looking to recreate exactly what we did. :)

[frozenprocedural]

Every Inch of Me is Trembling

Okay, so this was supposed to be for Elsarik week...

But life. As always, Alarik belongs to the incredible @patricia-von-arundel. This happens during Frozen 2.

Every Inch of me is Trembling

Rating: K

Alarik watched the dam fall.

As the giants hurled their massive boulders, some the height and breadth of small houses, he could only stare in awe and horror as the old structure was torn apart. 

He'd been behind Kristoff when the hulking creatures rose above the tree line, their forms blotting out the weak light that filtered through the heavy mist. Seconds later, he heard Krisoff's panicked shout- "ANNA!"- and he was gone, urging Sven into a flat-out gallop towards a small figure in the distance. Alarik spurred his reindeer to follow Sven, not knowing what he’d do, but he knew he couldn’t stand and watch. 

Not that he ended up doing anything more than continuing to follow as Kristoff swept Anna onto Sven’s back seconds before one of the Earth Giants crushed her beneath its massive foot and brought her to the base of Runeard’s dam. As Anna clambered up the rock face, Alarik was finally able to catch up to Kristoff. 

“What’s going on? What is Anna doing?” Alarik strained his neck to see if he could catch sight of what Anna was doing, but he could only make out rocks and plants. 

“Don’t know,” Kristoff grunted. “She said she needed to get to the dam.” He offered nothing more, but instead leapt off Sven’s back and began to scale the wall Anna had just climbed. Above, strangely enough came the sound of metal on metal- were those swords striking shields?- and then the ground shook as the Giants hurled their missiles.  

“Destroy the dam! Come on! Throw your boulders!” Above the chaos, Alarik could hear Anna’s voice rise above the chaos, and he too gripped the stones and made his slow way up the rock face. When he came to the top, he was greeted by the sight of Anna wrapped in Krisoff’s arms, pulled free from the crumbling structure. Alarik ran up, watching in horror at the sight of the tidal wave that surged down the fjord. 

He was used to wandering, to non-permanence. But Arendelle had almost become home. A home, with-

"Elsa." He looked around widely, suddenly realizing- he'd not seen Elsa with Anna. Had she gone somewhere else? "Anna, where's…"

Alarik's voice faltered when he caught sight of her face. 

"No. No, she can't, she wouldn't, no, no, NO!" Something raw and primal tore free from Alarik as he dropped to his knees, covering his face with his hands as the tears came. He howled like an animal in pain, uncaring of who heard. All he could think of, all he knew, was that Elsa was gone. 

Elsa was gone. 

Gradually he became aware of arms wrapping around his shoulders, rocking him gently, a soft voice murmuring, "Alarik, I'm sorry, I'm so sorry." He folded his arms around Anna, shaking his head. 

"Not your fault. I'm sorry you had to go through this yourself." He held Anna tight, sharing her devastation, trying not to think of what he would do with Elsa gone.

If he’d even be able to do anything with her gone. 

As if from a great distance, he heard the Northuldra surrounding them gasp and cry out. He lifted his head from Anna’s shoulder and saw that the mist had begun to lift, allowing the sight of the brilliant blue sky to break through- to him, it seemed a vicious mockery of what they’d lost. A hand dropped into his line of sight, and Alarik looked up to see Kristoff, arm out, his face a sad mask of pain. Alarik accepted his help, slowly getting to his feet, feeling completely numb. 

Alarik stumbled alongside Kristoff and Anna, only vaguely aware of their conversation. His mind was a hazed blur, and it took most of his concentration to place one foot in front of the other and maintain his balance.

Elsa’s dead, Elsa’s dead, Elsa’s dead.

The words came as a thundering mantra, as powerful as the wave he’d watch hurtle down the fjord, washing away any other thought. With shaking hands, he pulled the locket he kept safely hidden away in a hidden inner pocket of his vest and flipped it open. He traced a finger over the two items contained within- a small lock of hair and a copy of one of her Shards cells. The only physical reminder he had left of her. 

It was too much, all too much. As the reindeer surrounding them broke away to gallop in a celebratory circle, Alarik dropped to his knees, one hand clutching the locket to his chest, the other digging into the loam as he let the pain consume and overwhelm him. Tears rushed down his face and he groaned, a deep, hollow sound that shook his entire body. 

Elsa’s dead, Elsa’s dead, Elsa’s dead…

A soft whistle, and a breeze lifted the curls from his face. At first he paid Gale no mind, too caught up in his grief to care. However, when a heavier gust struck him, nearly knocking him over, Alarik's head snapped up.

"What do you want!? Can't you see I'm…" His voice faded away when he caught sight of what Gale carried within her wake. Not the normal leaves spun from the forest floor, but rather sparkling shards of… ice. Alarik stood as Gale buffeted his face one more as she formed the shards into a four-pointed shape Alarik recognized from his discussions with the Northuldra.

It was the symbol of the fifth spirit. 

Gale gave one more shrill whistle and shoved him in the direction of the fjord’s entrance. Alarik ran, pausing at the edge of the rocky embankment leading down to the shoreline. He could see that Anna was already there, staring out over the waters. He squinted, trying to see past the glare on the water's surface. When his eyes adjusted, he made out a figure moving towards the shore on top of the water. 

Alarik's heart leapt to his throat. It couldn't be. It had to be.

It was Elsa, but she had transformed- her unbound hair flowed to meet the twin trains of her dress, now a gossamer white. Moreover, her face showed pure joy, which only grew when she caught sight of Anna and urged what Alarik had to assume was the water spirit to go even faster until they reached the beach.

Alarik watched, still trying to understand what he was seeing, as Elsa slid from the back of the equine water spirit, her smile wide and expression soft. He was too far away to hear the sisters' conversation, but watched as the two of them rushed to one another and embraced. Only then did it finally hit him.

Elsa was there. She was alive. 

He scrambled down the embankment, heedless of the way the rocks tore at his skin and clothing. He needed to get there, needed to be sure. When he was a few feet away from Elsa, he came to a halt, breathing hard.

"Elsa?" It came out as a choked whisper- he felt that the very mention of her name might cause her to disappear and reveal her to be nothing more than a figment of his desperate imagination. His feet felt as if they'd been rooted to the spot- he couldn't make himself move any closer.

"Alarik." Her voice was cautious and sad. She closed the distance between them until they stood only inches apart, twisting her hands together- a motion he knew well- some things had not changed. “Alarik...I… I’m so very sorry.” 

Elsa’s words worked as a goad, jolting Alarik free from his paralysis. He lifted a trembling hand, hesitated, and then let it rest against her cheek, a sob escaping his lips as his fingers met the familiar coolness of her skin- real and solid to the touch, warming beneath his touch. “Elsa, oh… Elsa.” He lowered his head, letting it rest on her forehead, breathing in her scent. "You're alive. You're alive." 

Elsa's hand came up to mirror his, resting on his jaw. Through her own tears, she managed a small smile. 

"May I?"

Alarik heard his own sharp intake of breath before he nodded. "Please."

He lowered his head so that she could reach him. As soon as their lips met, their arms were around one another, pulling their bodies close as possible. Alarik could taste the salt from the sea on her lips, as well as something cool and sharp that reminded him of a winter's breeze. But there remained still the light, sweet taste unique to her. The final proof he needed to know that it was truly her in his arms- no matter how changed, she was still his Elsa.

No matter what was to come next, he would take it on by her side.

[mairi-mia1]

From Ms Gabaldon's Facebook page

For Those Kind People who keep urging me to "release the book!" (as though I'm keeping the manuscript in a cage in my office)...a Brief Explanation of How Publishing Works (on the purely mechanical side):

Well, as my husband (who has certainly had enough experience by now to Know) says, "To a writer, "finished" is a relative term." And it truly is. The _first_ "finished" is the most important <g>--when you have the Whole Thing in your hands. No feeling like it! (Though giving birth isn't far off...)

[NO! I haven't finished writing it. Dang close, though.]

After _that_, though...I wrote up all the phases of production, some years ago, in a vain effort to explain to the many-headed just _why_ the fact that I'd finished writing the book didn't mean it would be on their bookshelves the next day/week/month. I won't do the whole list here (I have work to do tonight), but in essence, the manuscript goes from me to two editors--one in the US, one in the UK--both of whom have been reading what chunks of the book I've finished already (so as to get a jump on things), but who will immediately start reading from the beginning, after which both of them will give me their separate comments and notes (there are _always_ spots where a scene or part of a scene has been accidentally repeated, so that's where we--because I'm also reading it from the beginning--catch that kind of stuff and resolve it). I'll have been having my own thoughts as to anything I want to change, so will be messing with the manuscript with all three sets of input in hand.

When that's done, the book is "finished," again--that is, it's ready to go to the copy-editor. This is a wonderful person (at least I hope she's still in business and available to do it for me again; she's done the last three or four books for me, plus several Lord John ones) whose thankless task is to read the manuscript One. Word. At. A. Time, and catch any difficulties along the way: typographical errors, inconsistencies (in names, ages, times, whatever--and there will be a number of them, owing to the size of the book and the way I write), incongruities (there's still a page in OUTLANDER--which was copy-edited by a, um, person of somewhat lesser talent, let us charitably say--where a maid brings in the tea-cups but carries out the brandy glasses at the end of the scene. Fortunately no one has ever noticed this), logical holes (she checks the distances between actual places and will let me know if it's really possible to get from point A to point B in three days or whatever), timeline issues (did the Siege of Savannah happen before or after the Siege of Charleston (only it was still being called Charles Town at that point, so we need to change all the "Charleston"s), and imposes "house style" (meaning that Penguin Random House has its own conventions regarding things like whether numbers are given in digital form or spelled out, whether we do or do not use Oxford commas, etc.) throughout. She's usually doing this under hideous time-constraints and I sent her a bottle of Really Fine Whisky last time.

But then, _I_ have to read the copy-edited version and "reply" to it. I.e., there will be a number of marginal questions or comments that I need to answer and either address or dismiss. This is ungodly labor (and also being done under a major time-constrant), but Very Necessary.

THEN the manuscript goes back and is corrected according to my last-minute corrections and insertions (I almost always realize that two or three vital bits are missing, and hastily write those scenes and insert them with the copy-edit correx), and comes back to me (AGAIN!) as galley proofs. These are, as you doubtless know, the pages of the book, printed just as it will (we hope) appear on the shelf, but on loose, unbound sheets. This is where we catch disjunctions in the formatting (very rare, but they do happen), any (we hope) minor nits that everybody has so far missed (and there is no book in existence that goes to press without errors, believe me), misspellings of the Gaelic (compositors can _not_ get a grasp on Gaelic words, no matter how carefully I print them, if they're inserted as corrections or additions. This is not helped by the fact that I don't speak Gaelic and don't always _know_ if something is misspelled), and any truly last-minute insertions (there's a clause in my contract that says if I change more than 10% of the text during the galley phase, I have to pay for the extra type-setting. This contingency is Remote).

I'm not mentioning any of the book design or the messing-about-with-the-cover issues, because I mostly just have to give an opinion on those, not actually do the work. But it all takes time.

Let it be noted that we did ALL of the above within five weeks, for each of the last two books. This drove everyone to the verge of insanity (and was terribly expensive), and we Really Don't Want to Do That Again (any of us!), which is why you aren't getting a pub date until the manuscript is by-God Finished.

[NO, it isn't finished yet. Don't worry--I'll tell you when it is!]

[leifandthorn]

First look at the Volume 2 proof

The proof copy of Volume 2 has arrived!

To keep creator expenses down, Whitlock sends these unbound, so what I got in the mail was a big stack of loose pages and an un-cropped cover. Check them out:

All this is well ahead of schedule — last year’s Volume 1 proof came on December 15.

As usual, I’m going to take a couple days and look through it, make sure everything came out okay. It’s hard to tell in this photo, but the cover printed a little dark — I’ll probably adjust the values and send the printer a new source file.

And then we go to press!

(Read the original post on Leif & Thorn.)

[puzzleboxzine]

Another Quick Update

Hello all! The original (unbound) proofs that were sent had an incorrect page arrangement, as well as a few other printing errors. I am awaiting corrected, bound proofs and will take pictures as soon as they arrive. Once the hard copy proofs are approved, the books will be ordered and should arrive by the end of the month. 

I apologize for the delay, but printing the book according to the proofs given to me would have made it unreadable. The spreads were off-set by a page, which meant the artwork and writing were not paired together, and that two-page writing was printed on both sides of a single page instead of as a two-page spread. 

I am awaiting the corrected proofs with bated breath!

[ryannfletcherwrites]

What's this book about? Well in a few words...lesbian enemies to lovers in space. That's it. That's the book. Very excited to get the paperback proof copy of Unbound Oath!! It drops in less than a week!! 😳😳😳 . . . #bookblogger #bookporn #biblophile #bibliophile #read #readers #bookaholic #booklover #bookworm #books #booksofinstagram #booklove #reader #booksharks #igreads #bookish #bookworm #instabooks #alwaysreading #theravenousreaders #booksbooksbooks https://www.instagram.com/p/ChsU671IVZ-/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[bestrenew728]

Best Photo Manager For Mac 2015

Web browsers, music players, video editors, photo managers, Email clients.you name it.this series is going to cover it. Our choice for the best photo manager software is CyberLink PhotoDirector 9. It lets you organize photos by date, color labels, star ratings, locations and even by person through facial recognition. It lets you organize photos by date, color labels, star ratings, locations and even by person through facial recognition. Photo Manager is designed specifically for Windows users by Proximal. The photo management software helps you to resize, create copies, crop, and edit your digital photos or print them from your computer. Top 10 Best Photo Management Software Reviews 2018 Posted by Winnie to Photo Management| Last Updated on Dec.13, 2017 Here is a complete list of 2018 best 8 photo management software for Mac or Windows, which makes photo organization and management easily, namely sorting photos, editing pictures, and backing up photos without a hassle.

This list of best photo management applications for Linux is different from our earlier list of best photo applications for Linux. That list contained image related applications for various purposes such as editing, painting etc., while this list deals with only photo managing applications. Here's a guide to the best photo editing software and apps available for amateur photographers, enthusiasts and professionals. Best Photo Editing Software (PC and Mac). Best for Sharing. There aren't many Mac photo management apps that aren't geared towards a specific purpose, but among the few we think Lyn is the best for it's speed, wide format compatibility, and good.

Photo Management Software is used to manage digital photos. It includes image editing as well as cropping of the image. Comprehensive software depends on the database for cataloging files on different storage media such as the hard disk, CDs, DVDs, as well as USB flash drives. Photo management software freeware, as well as regular version, is available. To decide on the best one befitting your requirements this review of top 6+ photo management software can be very useful.

Related:

Picasa

Picasa is one of the most widely used photo management software that helps image organization, viewing, and editing. It also has an integrated website for photo sharing. It became photo management software freeware from 2004 after Google acquired it from Lifescape. Besides native application, it can be used on Windows and Mac. Google also created a version for Linux.

XnView

XnView is efficient photo management software that is simple and easy to use and has over 500 different formats included in it. You can view, edit, and organize images and graphics using this software. You can also use the photo management software, free download for the easy and convenient management of your digital photo albums.

https://bestrenew728.tumblr.com/post/658273240394973184/best-utilities-for-mac-os-x. 10 essential Mac utilities Whenever Kirk McElhearn sets up a new Mac, these are the apps he installs first.

Fastone Image Viewer

Fastone Image Viewer is fast, reliable, as well as user-friendly photo management software. It is basically an image browser, editor, and converter. The photo management software, free download is available and it comes with a host of features for image viewing and management including retouch, cropping and also color management.

Other Platforms

Different types of photo management software are available in the industry. Some of them are paid versions whereas others are photo management software free. Best mac laptop for home use. Some of the software discussed above support most of the platforms whereas there are others that are designed for the specific operating system. Both types have their advantages for you.

Shop for Mac external hard drives at Best Buy. Compare and read customer reviews to purchase the Apple hard drive that fits your needs. Mac External Hard Drives. Categories & Filters. WD - My Passport for Mac 1TB External USB 3.0 Portable Hard Drive with Hardware Encryption - Black. Model: WDBFKF0010BBK-WESE. SKU: 6220721. Nov 05, 2018  Seagate Backup Plus Fast Top capacity USB 3.0 portable drive. Seagate's new Backup Plus Fast portable drive is the quickest and most capacious compact external hard drive to date. If you have a favorite hard drive to use with your Mac, be sure to tell us all about it in the comments below! Updated September 2018: These are still our favorite external hard drives for your Mac. This post may contain affiliate links. See it on Amazon. One of the Best Gaming External Hard Drives For Mac Silicon Power Armor A60. The Silicon Power Armor A60 is a rugged and portable external hard drive that comes with 3 TB storage capacity, military-grade shock-proof body, cable carry design, USB 3.0 and is compatible with Xbox One, Xbox 360, PS4, PS4 Pro and PS4 Slim. USB-C is certainly the port of the future, so grabbing a USB-C hard drive for your MacBook or MacBook Pro is the best way to take all of your files, music, photos, and more with you wherever you go without clogging up your Mac's own hard drive. https://bestrenew728.tumblr.com/post/656680059092992000/best-usb-external-hard-drive-for-mac.

Quick Pic Gallery for Android

QuickPic Gallery is the photo management software that is specifically designed for Android operating system. The software is fast, light, and highly advanced in features and it is used by over a million Android users. This photo management software, free download is available and it is one of the best alternative apps for photo management.

When you download it for the first time, you are immediately put on one month of Pro. The Pro version costs a staggering $89. After the 30 days are up, if you choose not to pay for Pro, then you are switched to the free version. Best photo editing tools for mac. Zoner has a free edition and a paid edition.

Unbound for Mac

Unbound for Mac is photo management software designed for Mac operating system. The software is 3x times faster in comparison to the standard ones in the market. With this software, you can access digital photos without having to wait or facing problems in organizing them according to your preferences.

Best Photo Manager For Linux

Photo Manager for Windows

Photo Manager is designed specifically for Windows users by Proximal. The photo management software helps you to resize, create copies, crop, and edit your digital photos or print them from your computer. Organize your digital photos and pick the right one as per your choice with the photo management software free or paid version.

Magix Photo Manager 16 – Most Popular Software

MAGIX PHOTO MANAGER 16 is the photo management software that is fast, accurate, and easy to use at the same time. The software is straightforward and allows you to import images from your camera directly. The software comes with a host of advanced features that makes image handling and organizing convenient.

How to Download Photo Management Software

Photo management software freeware, as well as paid versions, are available in the market. The difference in downloading the two versions is that for paid software you need a license from the provider whereas for freeware it may not be necessary. Some of the photo management software, free download is straightforward such as in the case of Photo Manager it is only following the instructions displayed on the screen. You need to check the compatibility only.

Photo management software can make your task of organizing digital photos and editing them fairly easier and comprehensive. You can download free or paid versions from the web but learning about the best would be possible by going through a comprehensive review of different products for photo management.

Best Photo Management For Mac 2015

Related Posts

[savedfromsalvation]

The Jesus Forgery: Josephus Untangled

 by Acharya S/D.M. Murdock

The following article is excerpted from:

Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled

When addressing the mythical nature of Jesus Christ, one issue repeatedly raised is the purported "evidence" of his existence to be found in the writings of Flavius Josephus, the famed Jewish general and historian who lived from about 37 to 100 CE. In Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews appears the notorious passage regarding Christ called the "Testimonium Flavianum" ("TF"):

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (Whitson, 379)

This surprisingly brief and simplistic passage constitutes the "best proof" of Jesus's existence in the entire ancient non-Christian library comprising the works of dozens of historians, writers, philosophers, politicians and others who never mentioned the great sage and wonderworker Jesus Christ, even though they lived contemporaneously with or shortly after the Christian savior's purported advent.

A False Witness

Despite the best wishes of sincere believers and the erroneous claims of truculent apologists, the Testimonium Flavianum has been demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery, likely interpolated by Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth century. So thorough and universal has been this debunking that very few scholars of repute continued to cite the passage after the turn of the 19th century. Indeed, the TF was rarely mentioned, except to note that it was a forgery, and numerous books by a variety of authorities over a period of 200 or so years basically took it for granted that the Testimonium Flavianum in its entirety was spurious, an interpolation and a forgery. As Dr. Gordon Stein relates:

"...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars."

So well understood was this fact of forgery that these numerous authorities did not spend their precious time and space rehashing the arguments against the TF's authenticity. Nevertheless, in the past few decades apologists of questionable integrity and credibility have glommed onto the TF, because this short and dubious passage represents the most "concrete" secular, non-biblical reference to a man who purportedly shook up the world. In spite of the past debunking, the debate is currently confined to those who think the TF was original to Josephus but was Christianized, and those who credulously and self-servingly accept it as "genuine" in its entirety.

To repeat, this passage was so completely dissected by scholars of high repute and standing--the majority of them pious Christians--that it was for decades understood by subsequent scholars as having been proved in toto a forgery, such that these succeeding scholars did not even mention it, unless to acknowledge it as false. (In addition to being repetitious, numerous quotes will be presented here, because a strong show of rational consensus is desperately needed when it comes to matters of blind, unscientific and irrational faith.) The scholars who so conclusively proved the TF a forgery made their mark at the end of the 18th century and into the 20th, when a sudden reversal was implemented, with popular opinion hemming and hawing its way back first to the "partial interpolation theory" and in recent times, among the third-rate apologists, to the notion that the whole TF is "genuine." As Earl Doherty says, in "Josephus Unbound":

"Now, it is a curious fact that older generations of scholars had no trouble dismissing this entire passage as a Christian construction. Charles Guignebert, for example, in his Jesus (1956, p.17), calls it 'a pure Christian forgery.' Before him, Lardner, Harnack and Schurer, along with others, declared it entirely spurious. Today, most serious scholars have decided the passage is a mix: original parts rubbing shoulders with later Christian additions."

The earlier scholarship that proved the entire TF to be fraudulent was determined by intense scrutiny by some of the most erudite, and mainly Christian, writers of the time, in a number of countries, their works written in a variety of languages, but particularly German, French and English. Their general conclusions, as elucidated by Christian authority Dr. Lardner, and related here by the author of Christian Mythology Unveiled (c. 1842), include the following reasons for doubting the authenticity of the TF as a whole:

"Mattathias, the father of Josephus, must have been a witness to the miracles which are said to have been performed by Jesus, and Josephus was born within two years after the crucifixion, yet in all the works he says nothing whatever about the life or death of Jesus Christ; as for the interpolated passage it is now universally acknowledged to be a forgery. The arguments of the 'Christian Ajax,' even Lardner himself, against it are these: 'It was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius. It disturbs the narrative. The language is quite Christian. It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it had it been then in the text. It is not quoted by Photius [9th century], though he has three articles concerning Josephus; and this author expressly states that this historian has not taken the least notice of Christ. Neither Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew; nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors; nor Origen against Celsus, have ever mentioned this testimony. But, on the contrary, in chap. 25th of the first book of that work, Origen openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ. That this passage is a false fabrication is admitted by Ittigius, Blondel, Le Clerc, Vandale, Bishop Warburton, and Tanaquil Faber.'" (CMU, 47)

Hence, by the 1840's, when the anonymous author of Christian Mythology Unveiled wrote, the Testimonium Flavanium was already "universally acknowledged to be a forgery."

The pertinent remarks by the highly significant Church father Origen (c. 185-c.254) appear in his Contra Celsus, Book I, Chapter XLVII:

"For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless--being, although against his will, not far from the truth--that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ)--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice" (Emphasis added)

Here, in Origen's words, is the assertion that Josephus, who discusses more than a dozen Jesuses, did not consider any of them to be "the Christ." This fact proves that the same phrase in the TF is spurious. Furthermore, Origen does not even intimate the presence of the rest of the TF. Concerning Origen and the TF, Arthur Drews relates in Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus:

"In the edition of Origen published by the Benedictines it is said that there was no mention of Jesus at all in Josephus before the time of Eusebius [c. 300 ce]. Moreover, in the sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus. It seems, therefore, that the passage must have been an interpolation, whether it was subsequently modified or not." (Drews, 9; emph. added)

According to the author of Christian Mythology Unveiled ("CMU"), this Vossius mentioned by a number of writers as having possessed a copy of Josephus's Antiquities lacking the TF is "I. Vossius," whose works appeared in Latin. Unfortunately, none of these writers includes a citation as to where exactly the assertion may be found in Vossius's works. Moreover, the Vossius in question seems to be Gerardus, rather than his son, Isaac, who was born in the seventeenth century.

Church Fathers Ignorant of Josephus Passage

In any event, as G.A. Wells points out in The Jesus Myth, not only do several Church fathers from the second, third and early fourth centuries have no apparent knowledge of the TF, but even after Eusebius suddenly "found" it in the first half of the fourth century, several other fathers into the fifth "often cite Josephus, but not this passage." (Wells, JM, 202) In the 5th century, Church father Jerome (c. 347-c.419) cited the TF once, with obvious disinterest, as if he knew it was fraudulent. In addition to his reference to the TF, in his Letter XXII. to Eustochium, Jerome made the following audacious claim:

"Josephus, himself a Jewish writer, asserts that at the Lord's crucifixion there broke from the temple voices of heavenly powers, saying: 'Let us depart hence.'"

Either Jerome fabricated this alleged Josephus quote, or he possessed a unique copy of the Jewish historian's works, in which this assertion had earlier been interpolated. In any case, Jerome's claim constitutes "pious fraud," one of many committed by Christian proponents over the centuries, a rampant practice, in fact, that must be kept in mind when considering the authenticity of the TF.

Following is a list of important Christian authorities who studied and/or mentioned Josephus but not the Jesus passage:

Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165), who obviously pored over Josephus's works, makes no mention of the TF.

Theophilus (d. 180), Bishop of Antioch--no mention of the TF.

Irenaeus (c. 120/140-c. 200/203), saint and compiler of the New Testament, has not a word about the TF.

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-211/215), influential Greek theologian and prolific Christian writer, head of the Alexandrian school, says nothing about the TF.

Origen (c. 185-c. 254), no mention of the TF and specifically states that Josephus did not believe Jesus was "the Christ."

Hippolytus (c. 170-c. 235), saint and martyr, nothing about the TF.

The author of the ancient Syriac text, "History of Armenia," refers to Josephus but not the TF.

Minucius Felix (d. c. 250), lawyer and Christian convert--no mention of the TF.

Anatolius (230-c. 270/280)--no mention of TF.

Chrysostom (c. 347-407), saint and Syrian prelate, not a word about the TF.

Methodius, saint of the 9th century--even at this late date there were apparently copies of Josephus without the TF, as Methodius makes no mention of it.

Photius (c. 820-891), Patriarch of Constantinople, not a word about the TF, again indicating copies of Josephus devoid of the passage, or, perhaps, a rejection of it because it was understood to be fraudulent.

Arguments Against Authenticity Further Elucidated

When the evidence is scientifically examined, it becomes clear that the entire Josephus passage regarding Jesus was forged, likely by Church historian Eusebius, during the fourth century. In "Who on Earth was Jesus Christ?" David Taylor details the reasons why the TF in toto must be deemed a forgery, most of which arguments, again, were put forth by Dr. Lardner:

"It was not quoted or referred to by any Christian apologists prior to Eusebius, c. 316 ad.

"Nowhere else in his voluminous works does Josephus use the word 'Christ,' except in the passage which refers to James 'the brother of Jesus who was called Christ' (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 9, Paragraph 1), which is also considered to be a forgery.

"Since Josephus was not a Christian but an orthodox Jew, it is impossible that he should have believed or written that Jesus was the Christ or used the words 'if it be lawful to call him a man,' which imply the Christian belief in Jesus' divinity.

"The extraordinary character of the things related in the passage--of a man who is apparently more than a man, and who rose from the grave after being dead for three days--demanded a more extensive treatment by Josephus, which would undoubtedly have been forthcoming if he had been its author.

"The passage interrupts the narrative, which would flow more naturally if the passage were left out entirely.

"It is not quoted by Chrysostom (c. 354-407 ad) even though he often refers to Josephus in his voluminous writings.

"It is not quoted by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 858-886 ad) even though he wrote three articles concerning Josephus, which strongly implies that his copy of Josephus' Antiquities did not contain the passage.

"Neither Justin Martyr (110-165 AD), nor Clement of Alexandria (153-217 ad), nor Origen (c.185-254 AD), who all made extensive reference to ancient authors in their defence of Christianity, has mentioned this supposed testimony of Josephus.

"Origen, in his treatise Against Celsus, Book 1, Chapter 47, states categorically that Josephus did NOT believe that Jesus was the Christ.

"This is the only reference to the Christians in the works of Josephus. If it were genuine, we would have expected him to have given us a fuller account of them somewhere."

When the earliest Greek texts are analyzed, it is obvious that the Testimonium Flavianum interrupts the flow of the primary material and that the style of the language is different from that of Josephus. There is other evidence that the TF never appeared in the original Josephus. As Wells says:

"As I noted in The Jesus Legend, there is an ancient table of contents in the Antiquities which omits all mention of the Testimonium. Feldman (in Feldman and Hata, 1987, p. 57) says that this table is already mentioned in the fifth- or sixth-century Latin version of the Antiquities, and he finds it 'hard to believe that such a remarkable passage would be omitted by anyone, let alone by a Christian summarizing the work.'" (Wells, JM, 201)

Also, Josephus goes into long detail about the lives of numerous personages of relatively little import, including several Jesuses. It is inconceivable that he would devote only a few sentences to someone even remotely resembling the character found in the New Testament. If the gospel tale constituted "history," Josephus's elders would certainly be aware of Jesus's purported assault on the temple, for example, and the historian, who was obviously interested in instances of messianic agitation, would surely have reported it, in detail. Moreover, the TF refers to Jesus as a "wise man"--this phrase is used by Josephus in regard to only two other people, out of hundreds, i.e., the patriarchs Joseph and Solomon. If Josephus had thought so highly of an historical Jesus, he surely would have written more extensively about him. Yet, he does not. Lest it be suggested that Josephus somehow could have been ignorant of the events in question, the Catholic Encyclopedia ("Flavius Josephus") says:

"... Josephus...was chosen by the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem to be commander-in-chief in Galilee. As such he established in every city throughout the country a council of judges, the members of which were recruited from those who shared his political views."

Indeed, Josephus was a well-educated Jew who lived in the precise area where the gospel tale was said to have taken place, as did his parents, the latter at the very time of Christ's alleged advent. It was Josephus's passion to study the Jewish people and their history; yet, other than the obviously bogus TF, and the brief "James passage" mentioned by Taylor above, it turns out that in his voluminous works Josephus discussed neither Christ nor Christianity. Nor does it make any sense that the prolific Jewish writer would not detail the Christian movement itself, were Christians extant at the time in any significant numbers.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (CE), which tries to hedge its bet about the Josephus passage, is nevertheless forced to admit: "The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations." In the same entry, CE also confirms that Josephus's writings were used extensively by the early Christian fathers, such as Jerome, Ambrose and Chrystostom; nevertheless, as noted, except for Jerome, they never mention the TF.

Regarding the TF, as well as the James passage, which possesses the phrase James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, Jewish writer ben Yehoshua makes some interesting assertions:

"Neither of these passages is found in the original version of the Jewish Antiquities which was preserved by the Jews. The first passage (XVII, 3, 3) was quoted by Eusebius writing in c. 320 C.E., so we can conclude that it was added in some time between the time Christians got hold of the Jewish Antiquities and c. 320 C.E. It is not known when the other passage (XX, 9, 1) was added... Neither passage is based on any reliable sources. It is fraudulent to claim that these passages were written by Josephus and that they provide evidence for Jesus. They were written by Christian redactors and were based purely on Christian belief."

Yehoshua claims that the 12th century historian Gerald of Wales related that a "Master Robert of the Priory of St. Frideswide at Oxford examined many Hebrew copies of Josephus and did not find the 'testimony about Christ,' except for two manuscripts where it appeared [to Robert, evidently] that the testimony had been present but scratched out." Yehoshua states that, since "scratching out" requires the removal of the top layers, the deleted areas in these mere two of the many copies likely did not provide any solid evidence that it was the TF that had been removed. Apologists will no doubt insist that these Hebrew texts are late copies and that Jewish authorities had the TF removed. This accusation of mutilating an author's work, of course, can easily be turned around on the Christians. Also, considering that Vossius purportedly possessed a copy of the Antiquities without the TF, it is quite possible that there were "many Hebrew copies" likewise devoid of the passage.

Higher Criticism by Christian Authorities

The many reasons for concluding the Josephus passage to be a forgery have been expounded upon by numerous well-respected authorities, so much so that such individuals have been compelled by honesty and integrity to dismiss the Testimonium in toto as a forgery. In The Christ, John Remsburg relates the opinions of critics of the TF from the past couple of centuries, the majority of whom were Christian authorities, including and especially Dr. Lardner, who said:

"A testimony so favorable to Jesus in the works of Josephus, who lived so soon after our Savior, who was so well acquainted with the transactions of his own country, who had received so many favors from Vespasian and Titus, would not be overlooked or neglected by any Christian apologist (Lardner's Works, vol. I, chap. iv)."

Yet, the TF was overlooked and neglected by early Christian writers. In other words, they never cited it because it didn't exist.

Another authority, Bishop Warburton, called the TF a "rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too." Remsburg further related the words of the "Rev. Dr. Giles, of the Established Church of England," who stated:

"Those who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus, and the style of his writings, have no hesitation in condemning this passage as a forgery, interpolated in the text during the third century by some pious Christian, who was scandalized that so famous a writer as Josephus should have taken no notice of the gospels, or of Christ, their subject...."

In addition, the Rev. S. Baring-Gould remarked:

"This passage is first quoted by Eusebius (fl. A.D. 315) in two places (Hist. Eccl., lib. I, c. xi; Demonst. Evang., lib. iii); but it was unknown to Justin Martyr (fl. A.D. 140), Clement of Alexandria (fl. A.D. 192), Tertullian (fl. A.D. 193), and Origen (fl. A.D. 230). Such a testimony would certainly have been produced by Justin in his apology or in his controversy with Trypho the Jew, had it existed in the copies of Josephus at his time. The silence of Origen is still more significant. Celsus, in his book against Christianity, introduces a Jew. Origen attacks the argument of Celsus and his Jew. He could not have failed to quote the words of Josephus, whose writings he knew, had the passage existed in the genuine text. He, indeed, distinctly affirms that Josephus did not believe in Christ (Contr. Cels. I)."

Remsburg also recounts:

"Cannon Farrar, who has written an ablest Christian life of Christ yet penned, repudiates it. He says: 'The single passage in which he [Josephus] alludes to him is interpolated, if not wholly spurious' (Life of Christ, Vol. I, p. 46).

"The following, from Dr. Farrar's pen, is to be found in the Encyclopedia Britannica: 'That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe.'"

And so on, with similar opinions by Christian scholars such as Theodor Keim, Rev. Dr. Hooykaas and Dr. Alexander Campbell. By the time of Dr. Chalmers and others, the TF had been so discredited that these authorities understood it as a forgery in toto and did not even consider it for a moment as "evidence" of Jesus's existence and/or divinity. In fact, these subsequent defenders of the faith, knowing the TF to be a forgery, repeatedly commented on how disturbing it was that Josephus did not mention Jesus.

In the modern apologist work The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel relates a passage from a novel published in 1979 by Charles Templeton, in which the author states, regarding Jesus, "There isn't a single word about him in secular history. Not a word. No mention of him by the Romans. Not so much as a reference by Josephus." (Strobel, 101) Strobel then reports the response by Christian professor Edwin Yamauchi, who claimed that Templeton was mistaken and that there was a reference to Jesus by Josephus. Yamauchi's fatuous response ignores, purposefully or otherwise, the previous ironclad arguments about which Templeton was apparently educated, such that he made such a statement. In other words, Templeton was evidently aware of the purported reference in Josephus but had understood by the arguments of the more erudite, earlier Christian authorities that it was a forgery; hence, there is "not so much as a reference by Josephus." In this facile manner of merely ignoring or dismissing the earlier scholarship, modern believers cling to the long-dismissed TF in order to convince themselves of the unbelievable.

For a more modern criticism, in The Jesus Puzzle and his online article "Josephus Unbound," secularist and classicist Earl Doherty leaves no stone unturned in demolishing the TF, permitting no squirming room for future apologists, whose resort to the TF will show, as it has done in the past, how hopeless is their plight in establishing an "historical Jesus." Concerning the use of Josephus as "evidence" of Jesus's existence, Doherty remarks:

"[I]n the absence of any other supporting evidence from the first century that in fact the Jesus of Nazareth portrayed in the Gospels clearly existed, Josephus becomes the slender thread by which such an assumption hangs. And the sound and fury and desperate manoeuverings which surround the dissection of those two little passages becomes a din of astonishing proportions. The obsessive focus on this one uncertain record is necessitated by the fact that the rest of the evidence is so dismal, so contrary to the orthodox picture. If almost everything outside Josephus points in a different direction, to the essential fiction of the Gospel picture and its central figure, how can Josephus be made to bear on his shoulders, through two passages whose reliability has thus far remained unsettled, the counterweight to all this other negative evidence?"

Other modern authors who criticize the TF include The Jesus Mysteries authors Freke and Gandy, who conclude:

"Unable to provide any historical evidence for Jesus, later Christians forged the proof that they so badly needed to shore up their Literalist interpretation of the gospels. This, as we would see repeatedly, was a common practice." (Freke and Gandy, 137)

Despite the desperate din, a number of other modern writers remain in concurrence with the earlier scholarship and likewise consider the TF in toto a fraud.

The Suspect: Eusebius (c. 264-340)

In addition to acknowledging the spuriousness of the Josephus passage, many authorities quoted here agreed with the obvious: Church historian Eusebius was the forger of the entire Testimonium Flavianium. Various reasons have already been given for making such a conclusion. In "Did Jesus Really Live?" Marshall Gauvin remarks:

"Everything demonstrates the spurious character of the passage. It is written in the style of Eusebius, and not in the style of Josephus. Josephus was a voluminous writer. He wrote extensively about men of minor importance. The brevity of this reference to Christ is, therefore, a strong argument for its falsity. This passage interrupts the narrative. It has nothing to do with what precedes or what follows it; and its position clearly shows that the text of the historian has been separated by a later hand to give it room."

Regarding the absence of the TF in the writings of earlier Christian fathers and its sudden appearance with Eusebius, CMU says:

"it has been observed that the famous passage which we find in Josephus, about Jesus Christ, was never mentioned or alluded to in any way whatever by any of the fathers of the first, second, or third centuries; nor until the time of Eusebius, 'when it was first quoted by himself [sic].' The truth is, none of these fathers could quote or allude to a passage which did not exist in their times; but was to all points short of absolutely certain, forged and interpolated by Eusebius, as suggested by Gibbon and others. Even the redoubtable Lardner has pronounced this passage to be a forgery." (CMU, 79-80)

Moreover, the word "tribe" in the TF is another clue that the passage was forged by Eusebius, who is fond of the word, while Josephus uses it only in terms of ethnicity, never when describing a religious sect. Kerry Shirts adds to this particular point:

"Eusebius studied Josephus diligently, and could thus masquerade as he, except when he used the word 'tribe' to describe the Christians. All the literature from the Ante-Nicene Fathers show they never used the word 'tribe' or 'race' with reference to the Christians, was [sic] either by the Fathers or when they quoted non-Christian writers. Tertullian, Pliny the Younger, Trajan, Rufinus--none use 'tribe' to refer to Christians. Eusebius is the first to start the practice."

In Antiqua Mater: A Study of Christian Origins, Edwin Johnson remarked that the fourth century was "the great age of literary forgery, the extent of which has yet to be exposed." He further commented that "not until the mass of inventions labelled 'Eusebius' shall be exposed, can the pretended references to Christians in Pagan writers of the first three centuries be recognized for the forgeries they are." Indeed, Eusebius's character has been assailed repeatedly over the centuries, with him being called a "luminous liar" and "unreliable." Like so many others, Drews likewise criticizes Eusebius, stating that various of the Church historian's references "must be regarded with the greatest suspicion." As Drews relates, Swiss historian Jakob Burckhardt (1818-1897) declared Eusebius to be "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity." (Drews, 32/fn) Eusebius's motives were to empower the Catholic Church, and he did not fail to use "falsifications, suppressions, and fictions" to this end.

Conclusion: Josephus No Evidence of Jesus

Even if the Josephus passage were authentic, which we have essentially proved it not to be, it nevertheless would represent not an eyewitness account but rather a tradition passed along for at least six decades, long after the purported events. Hence, the TF would possess little if any value in establishing an "historical" Jesus. In any event, it is quite clear that the entire passage in Josephus regarding Christ, the Testimonium Flavianum, is spurious, false and a forgery. Regarding the TF, Remsburg summarizes:

"For nearly sixteen hundred years Christians have been citing this passage as a testimonial, not merely to the historical existence, but to the divine character of Jesus Christ. And yet a ranker forgery was never penned....

"Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus' work is voluminous and exhaustive. It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed with a dozen lines...."

The dismissal of the passage in Josephus regarding Jesus is not based on "faith" or "belief" but on intense scientific scrutiny and reasoning. Such investigation has been confirmed repeatedly by numerous scholars who were mostly Christian. The Testimonium Flavianum, Dr. Lardner concluded in none too forceful words, "ought, therefore...to be discarded from any place among the evidences of Christianity." With such outstanding authority and so many scientific reasons, we can at last dispense with the pretentious charade of wondering if the infamous passage in the writings of Josephus called the Testimonium Flavianum is forged and who fabricated it.

Excerpted from Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled by Acharya S.

[suzanneshannon]

Immersive Content Strategy

Beyond the severe toll of the coronavirus pandemic, perhaps no other disruption has transformed user experiences quite like how the tethers to our formerly web-biased era of content have frayed. We’re transitioning to a new world of remote work and digital content. We’re also experimenting with unprecedented content channels that, not too long ago, elicited chuckles at the watercooler, like voice interfaces, digital signage, augmented reality, and virtual reality.

Many factors are responsible. Perhaps it’s because we yearn for immersive spaces that temporarily resurrect the Before Times, or maybe it’s due to the boredom and tedium of our now-cemented stuck-at-home routines. But aural user experiences slinging voice content, and immersive user experiences unlocking new forms of interacting with formerly web-bound content, are no longer figments of science fiction. They’re fast becoming a reality in the here and now.

The idea of immersive experiences is all the rage these days, and content strategists and designers are now seriously examining this still-amorphous trend. Immersive experiences embrace concepts like geolocation, digital signage, and extended reality (XR). XR encompasses augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) as well as their fusion: mixed reality (MR). Sales of immersive equipment like gaming and VR headsets have skyrocketed during the pandemic, and content strategists are increasingly attuned to the kaleidoscope of devices and interfaces users now interact with on a daily basis to acquire information.

Immersive user experiences are becoming commonplace, and, more importantly, new tools and frameworks are emerging for designers and developers looking to get their hands dirty. But that doesn’t mean our content is ready for prime time in settings unbound from the web like physical spaces, digital signage, or extended reality. Recasting your fixed web content in more immersive ways will enable more than just newfangled user experiences; it’ll prepare you for flexibility in an unpredictable future as well.

Agnostic content for immersive experiences

These days, we interact with content through a slew of devices. It’s no longer the case that we navigate information on a single desktop computer screen. In my upcoming book Voice Content and Usability (A Book Apart, coming June 2021), I draw a distinction between what I call macrocontent—the unwieldy long-form copy plastered across browser viewports—and Anil Dash’s definition of microcontent: the kind of brisk, contextless bursts of content that we find nowadays on Apple Watches, Samsung TVs, and Amazon Alexas.

Today, content also has to be ready for contextless situations—not only in truncated form when we struggle to make out tiny text on our smartwatches or scroll through new television series on Roku but also in places it’s never ended up before. As the twenty-first century continues apace, our clients and our teams are beginning to come to terms with the fact that the way copy is consumed in just a few decades will bear no resemblance whatsoever to the prosaic browsers and even smartphones of today.

What do we mean by immersive content?

Immersive experiences are those that, according to Forrester, blur “the boundaries between the human, digital, physical, and virtual realms” to facilitate smarter, more interactive user experiences. But what do we mean by immersive content? I define immersive content as content that plays in the sandbox of physical and virtual space—copy and media that are situationally or locationally aware rather than rooted in a static, unmoving computer screen.

Whether a space is real or virtual, immersive content (or spatialcontent) will be a key way in which our customers and users deal with information in the coming years. Unlike voice content, which deals with time and sound, immersive content works with space and sight. Immersive content operates not along the axis of links and page changes but rather along situational changes, as the following figure illustrates.

In this illustration, each rectangle represents different displays that appear based on situational changes such as movement in space or adjustment of perspective that result in the delivery of different content from the previous context. One of these, such as the rightmost display, can be a web-enabled content display with links to other content presented in the same display. This illustration thus demonstrates two forms of navigation: traditional link navigation and immersive situational navigation.

Acknowledging the actual or imagined surroundings of where we are as human beings will have vast implications for content strategy, omnichannel marketing, usability testing, and accessibility. Before we dig deeper, let’s define a few clear categories of immersive content:

Digital signage content. Though it may seem a misnomer, digital signage is one of the most widespread examples of immersive content already in use today. For example, you may have seen it used to display a guide of stores at a mall or to aid wayfinding in an airport. While still largely bound to flat screens, it’s an example of content in space.

Locational content. Locational content involves copy that is delivered to a user on a personal device based on their current location in the world or within an identified physical space. Most often mediated through Bluetooth low-energy (BLE) beacon technology or GPS location services, it’s an example of content at a point in space.

Augmented reality content. Unlike locational content, which doesn’t usually adjust itself seamlessly based on how users move in real-world space, AR content is now common in museums and other environments—typically as overlays that are superimposed over actual physical surroundings and adjust dynamically according to the user’s position and perspective. It’s content projected into real-world space.

Virtual reality content. Like AR content, VR content is dependent on its imagined surroundings in terms of how it displays, but it’s part of a nonexistent space that is fully immersive, an example of content projected into virtual space.

Navigable content. Long a gimmicky playground for designers and developers interested in pushing the envelope, navigable content is copy that users can move across and sift through as if it were a physical space itself: true content as space.

The following illustration depicts these types of immersive content in their typical habitats.

Why auditing immersive content is important

Alongside conversational and voice content, immersive content is a compelling example of breaking content out of the limiting box where it has long lived: the browser viewport, the computer screen, and the 8.5”x11” or broadsheet borders of print media. For centuries, our written copy has been affixed to the staid standards of whatever bookbinders, newspaper printing presses, and screen manufacturers decided. Today, however, for the first time, we’re surmounting those arbitrary barriers and situating content in contexts that challenge all the assumptions we’ve made since the era of Gutenberg—and, arguably, since clay tablets, papyrus manuscripts, and ancient scrolls.

Today, it’s never been more pressing to implement an omnichannel content strategy that centers the reality our customers increasingly live in: a world in which information can end up on any device, even if it has no tether to a clickable or scrollable setting. One of the most important elements of such a future-proof content strategy is an omnichannel content audit that evaluates your content from a variety of standpoints so you can manage and plan it effectively. These audits generally consist of several steps:

Write a questionnaire. Each content item needs to be examined from the perspective of each channel through a series of channel-relevant questions, like whether content is legible or discoverable on every conduit through which it travels.

Settle the criteria. No questionnaire is complete for a content audit without evaluation criteria that measure how the content performs and recommendation criteria that determine necessary steps to improve its efficacy.

Discuss with stakeholders. At the end of any content audit, it’s important to leaf through the results and any recommendations in a frank discussion with stakeholders, including content strategists, editors, designers, and others.

In my previous article for A List Apart, I shared the work we did on a conversational content audit for Ask GeorgiaGov, the first (but now decommissioned) Alexa skill for residents of the state of Georgia. Such a content audit is just one facet of the multifaceted omnichannel content strategy along various dimensions you’ll need to consider. Nonetheless, there are a few things all content audits share in terms of foundational evaluation criteria across all content delivery channels:

Content legibility. Is the content readable or easily consumable from a variety of vantage points and perspectives? In the case of immersive content, this can include examining verbosity tolerance (how long content can be before users zone out, a big factor in digital signage) and phantom references (like links and calls to action that make sense on the web but not on a VR headset).

Content discoverability. It’s no longer guaranteed in immersive content experiences that every piece of content can be accessed from other content items, and content loses almost all of its context when displayed unmoored from other content in digital signs or AR overlays. For discoverability’s sake, avoid relegating content to unreachable siloes, whether content is inaccessible due to physical conditions (like walls or other obstacles) or technical ones (like a finicky VR headset).

Like voice content, immersive content requires ample attention to the ways in which users approach and interact with content in physical and virtual spaces. And as I write in Voice Content and Usability, it’s also the case that cross-channel interactions can influence how we work with copy and media. After all, how often do subway and rail commuters glance up while scrolling through service advisories on their smartphones to consult a potentially more up-to-date alert on a digital sign?

Digital signage content: Content in space

Signage has long been a fixture of how we find our way through physical spaces, ever since the earliest roads crisscrossed civilizations. Today, digital signs are becoming ubiquitous across shopping centers, university campuses, and especially transit systems, with the New York City subway recently introducing countdown clocks that display service advisories on a ticker along the bottom of the screen, just below train arrival times.

Digital signs can deliver critical content at important times, such as during emergencies, without the limitations imposed by the static nature of analog signs. News tickers on digital signs, for instance, can stretch for however long they need to, though succinctness is still highly prized. But digital signage’s rich potential to deliver immersive content also presents challenges when it comes to content modeling and governance.

Are news items delivered to digital signs simply teaser or summary versions of full articles? Without a fully functional and configurable digital sign in your office, how will you preview them in context before they go live? To solve this problem for the New York City subway, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) manages all digital signage content across all signs within a central Drupal content management system (CMS), which synthesizes data such as train arrival times from real-time feeds and transit messages administered in the CMS for arbitrary delivery to any platform across the network.

How to present content items in digital signs also poses problems. As the following figure illustrates, do you overtake the entire screen at the risk of obscuring other information, do you leave it in a ticker that may be ignored, or do you use both depending on the priority or urgency of the content you’re presenting?

While some digital signs have the benefit of touch screens and occupying entire digital kiosks, many are tasked with providing key information in as little space as possible, where users don’t have the luxury of manipulating the interface to customize the content they wish to view. The New York City subway makes a deliberate choice to allow urgent alerts to spill across the entire screen, which limits the sign’s usefulness for those who simply need to know when the next train is arriving in the interest of more important information that is relevant to all passengers—and those who need captions for loudspeaker announcements.

Auditing for digital signage content

Because digital signs value brevity and efficiency, digital signage content often isn’t the main focus of what’s displayed. Digital signs on the São Paulo metro, for instance, juggle service alerts, breaking news, and health advisories. For this reason, auditing digital signage content for legibility and discoverability is key to ensuring users can interact with it gracefully, regardless of how often it appears, how highly prioritized it is, or what it covers.

When it comes to legibility, ask yourself these questions and consider the digital sign content you’re authoring based on these concerns:

Font size and typography. Many digital signs use sans-serif typefaces, which are easier to read from a distance, and many also employ uppercase for all text, especially in tickers. Consider which typefaces advance rather than obscure legibility, even when the digital sign content overtakes the entire screen.

Angles and perspective. Is your digital sign content readily readable from various angles and various vantage points? Does the reflectivity of the screen impact your content’s legibility when standing just below the sign? How does your content look when it’s displayed to a user craning their neck and peering at it askew?

Color contrast and lighting. Digital signs are no longer just fixtures of subterranean worlds; they’re above-ground and in well-lit spaces too. Color contrast and lighting strongly influence how legible your digital sign content can be.

As for discoverability, digital signs present challenges of both physical discoverability (can the sign itself be easily found and consulted?) and content discoverability (how long does a reader have to stare at the sign for the content they need to show up?):

Physical discoverability. Are signs placed in prominent locations where users will come across them? The MTA was criticized for the poor placement of many of its digital countdown clocks in the New York City subway, something that can block a user from ever accessing content they need.

Content discoverability. Because digital signs can only display so much content at once, even if there’s a large amount of copy to deliver eventually, users of digital signs may need to wait too long for their desired content to appear, or the content they seek may be too deprioritized for it to show up while they’re looking at the sign.

Both legibility and discoverability of digital sign content require thorough approaches when authoring, designing, and implementing content for digital signs.

Usability and accessibility in digital signage content

In addition to audits, in any physical environment, immersive content on digital signs requires a careful and bespoke approach to consider not only how content will be consumed on the sign itself but also all the ways in which users move around and refer to digital signage as they consult it for information. After all, our content is no longer couched in a web page or recited by a screen reader, both objects we can control ourselves; instead, it’s flashed and displayed on flat screens and kiosks in physical spaces. 

Consider how the digital sign and the content it presents appear to people who use mobility aids such as wheelchairs or walkers. Is the surrounding physical environment accessible enough so that wheelchair users can easily read and discover the content they seek on a digital sign, which may be positioned too high for a seated reader? By the same token, can colorblind and dyslexic people read the chosen typeface in the color scheme it’s rendered in? Is there an aural equivalent of the content for Blind people navigating your digital signage, in close proximity to the sign itself, serving as synchronized captions?

Locational content: Content at a point in space

Unlike digital signage content, which is copy or media displayed in a space, locational (or geolocational) content is copy or media delivered to a device—usually a phone or watch—based on a point in space (if precise location is acquired through GPS location services) or a swath of space (typically driven by Bluetooth Low Energy beacons that have certain ranges). For smartphone and smartwatch users, GPS location services can often pinpoint a relatively accurate sense of where a person is, while Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) beacons can triangulate their position based on devices that have Bluetooth enabled.

Though BLE beacons remain a fairly finicky and untested realm of spatial technology, they’ve quickly gained traction in large shopping centers and public spaces such as airports where users agree to receive content relevant to their current location, most often in the form of push notifications that whisk users away into a separate view with more comprehensive information. But because these tiny chunks of copy are often tightly contained and contextless, teams designing for locational content need to focus on how users interact with their devices as they move through physical spaces.

Auditing for locational content

Fortunately, because locational content is often delivered to the same visual devices that we use on a regular basis—smartphones, smartwatches, and tablets—auditing for content legibility can embrace many of the same principles we employ to evaluate other content. For discoverability, some of the most important considerations include:

Locational discoverability. BLE beacons are notorious for their imprecision, though they continue to improve in quality. GPS location, too, can be an inaccurate measure of where someone is at any given time. The last thing you want your customers to experience is an incorrect triangulation of where they are leading to embarrassing mistakes and bewilderment when unexpected content travels down the wire.

Proximity. Because of the relative lack of precision when it comes to BLE beacons and GPS location services, placing content items too close together in a coordinate map may trigger too many notifications or resource deliveries to a user, thus overwhelming them, or a certain content item may inadvertently supersede another because they’re spaced too closely together.

As push notifications and location sharing become more common, locational content is rapidly becoming an important way to funnel users toward somewhat longer-form content that might otherwise go unnoticed when a customer is in a brick-and-mortar store.

Usability and accessibility in locational content

Because locational content requires users to move around physical spaces and trigger triangulation, consider how different types of users will move and also whether unforeseen issues can arise. For example, researchers in Japan found that users who walk while staring at their phones are highly disruptive to the flow and movement of those around them. Is your locational content possibly creating a situation where users bump into others, or worse, get into accidents? For instance, writing copy that’s quick and to the point or preventing notifications from being prematurely dismissed could allow users to ignore their devices until they have time to safely glance at them.

Limited mobility and cognitive disabilities can place many disabled users of locational content at a deep disadvantage. While gamification may encourage users to seek as many items of locational content as possible in a given span of time for promotional purposes, consider whether it excludes wheelchair users or people who encounter obstacles when switching between contexts rapidly. There are good use cases for locational content, but what’s compelling for some users might be confounding for others.

AR and VR content: Content projected into space

Augmented reality, once the stuff of science fiction holograms and futuristic cityscapes, is becoming more available to the masses thanks to wearable AR devices, high-performing smartphones and tablets, and innovation in machine vision capabilities, though the utopian future of true “holographic” content remains as yet unrealized. Meanwhile, virtual reality has seen incredible growth over the pandemic as homebound users—by interacting with copy and media in fictional worlds—increasingly seek escapist ways to access content normally spread across flat screens.

While AR and VR content is still in its infancy, the vast majority is currently couched in overlays that are superimposed over real-world environments or objects and can be opaque (occupying some of a device’s field of vision) or semi-transparent (creating an eerie, shimmery film on which text or media is displayed). Thanks to advancements in machine vision, these content overlays can track the motion of perceived objects in the physical or virtual world, bamboozling us into thinking these overlays are traveling in our fields of vision just like the things we see around us do.

Formerly restricted to realms like museums, expensive video games, and gimmicky prototypes, AR and VR content is now becoming much more popular among companies that are interested in more immersive experiences capable of delivering content alongside objects in real-life brick-and-mortar environments, as well as virtual or imagined landscapes, like fully immersive brand experiences that transport customers to a pop-up store in their living room.

To demonstrate this, my former team at Acquia Labs built an experimental proof of concept that examines how VR content can be administered within a CMS and a pilot project for grocery stores that explores what can happen when product information is displayed as AR content next to consumer goods in supermarket aisles. The following illustration shows, in the context of this latter experiment, how a smartphone camera interacts with a machine vision service and a Drupal CMS to acquire information to render alongside the item.

Auditing for AR and VR content

Because AR and VR content, unlike other forms of immersive content, fundamentally plays in the same sandbox as the real world (or an imaginary one), legibility and discoverability can become challenging. The potential risks for AR and VR content are in many regards a fusion of the problems found in both digital signage and locational content, encompassing both physical placement and visual perspective, especially when it comes to legibility:

Content visibility. Is the AR or VR overlay too transparent to comfortably read the copy or view the image contained therein, or is it so opaque that it obscures its surroundings? AR and VR content must coexist gracefully with its exterior, and the two must enhance rather than obfuscate each other. Does the way your content is delivered compromise a user’s feeling of immersion in the environment behind it?

Content perspective. Unless you’re limited to a smartphone or similar handheld device, many AR and VR overlays, especially in immersive headsets, don’t display content or media as an immobile rectangular box, as it defeats the purpose of the illusion and can be jarring to users as they adjust their field of vision, breaking them out of the fantasy you’re hoping to create. For this reason, your AR or VR experience must not only dictate how environments and objects are angled and lit but also how the content associated with them is perceived. Is your content readable from various angles and points in the AR view or VR world?

When it comes to discoverability of your AR and VR content, issues like accuracy in machine vision and triangulation of your user’s location and orientation become much more important:

Machine vision. Most relevantly for AR content, if your copy or media is predicated on machine vision that perceives an object by identifying it according to certain characteristics, how accurate is that prediction? Does some content go undiscovered because certain objects go undetected in your AR-enabled device?

Location accuracy. If your content relies on the user’s current location and orientation in relation to some point in space, as is common in both AR and VR content use cases, how accurately do devices dictate correct delivery at just the right time and place? Are the ranges within which content is accessible too limited, leading to flashes of content as you take a step to the left or right? Are there locations that simply can’t be reached, leading to forever-siloed copy or media?

Due to the intersection of technical considerations and design concerns, AR and VR content, like voice content and indeed other forms of immersive content, requires a concerted effort across multiple teams to ensure resources are delivered not just legibly but also discoverably.

Usability and accessibility in AR and VR content

Out of all the forms of immersive content we’ve covered so far, AR and VR content is possibly the medium that demands the most assiduously crafted solutions in accessibility testing and usability testing. Because AR and VR content, especially in headsets or wearable devices, requires motion through real or imagined space, its impact on accessibility cannot be overstated. Adding a third dimension—and arguably, a fourth: time—to our perception of content requires attention not only to how content is accessed but also all the other elements that comprise a fully immersive visual experience.

VR headsets commonly induce virtual reality motion sickness in many individuals. Poorly implemented transitions between states occurring in quick succession where content is visible and then invisible, and then visible again, can lead to epileptic seizures if not built with the utmost care. Finally, users moving quickly through spaces may inadvertently trigger vertigo in themselves or even collide with hazardous objects, resulting in potentially serious injuries. There’s a reason we aren’t wearing wearable headsets outside carefully secured environments.

Navigable content: Content as space

This is only the beginning of immersive content. Increasingly, we’re also toying with ideas that seemed harebrained even a few decades ago, like navigable content—copy and media that can be traversed as if the content itself were a navigable space. Imagine zooming in and out of tracts of text and stepping across glyphs like hopping between islands in a Super Mario game. Ambitious designers and developers are exploring this emerging concept of navigable content in exciting ways, both in and out of AR and VR. In many ways, truly navigable content is the endgame of how virtual reality presents information.

Imagining an encyclopedia that we can browse like the classic 1990s opening sequence of the BBC’s Eyewitness television episodes is no longer as far-fetched as we think. Consider, for instance, Robby Leonardi’s interactive résumé, which invites you to play a character as you learn about his career, or Bruno Simon’s ambitious portfolio, where you drive an animated truck around his website. For navigable content, the risks and rewards for user experience and accessibility remain largely unexplored, just like the hazy fringes of the infinite maps VR worlds make possible.

Conclusion

The story of immersive content is in its early stages. As newly emerging channels for content see greater adoption, requiring us to relay resources like text and media to never-before-seen destinations like digital signage, location-enabled devices, and AR and VR overlays, the demands on our content strategy and design approaches will become both fascinating and frustrating. As seemingly fantastical new interfaces continue to emerge over the horizon, we’ll need an omnichannel content strategy to guide our own journeys as creatives and to orient the voyages of our users into the immersive.

Content audits and effective content strategies aren’t just the domain of staid websites and boxy mobile or tablet interfaces—or even aurally rooted voice interfaces. They’re a key component of our increasingly digitized spaces, too, cornerstones of immersive experiences that beckon us to consume content where we are at any moment, unmoored from a workstation or a handheld. Because it lacks long-standing motifs of the web like context and clickable links, immersive content invites us to revisit our content with a fresh perspective. How will immersive content reinvent how we deliver information like the web did only a few decades ago, like voice has done in the past ten years?

Only the test of time, and the allure of immersion, will tell.

Immersive Content Strategy published first on https://deskbysnafu.tumblr.com/