Technical Twists: Thank You, Next (Row)

In this occasional series, I talk about tech editing issues I’ve encountered as an example of issues to look out for in your own pattern writing/knitting adventures.  All cases are anonymized  – the patterns and their authors will not be identified and I will give only the details necessary to explain the issue and how I fixed it.

Today’s case is a little different in that this was not actually an error in the pattern, but it is a good example of how certain formatting and style choices can make your pattern easier —or harder — to follow.

I was editing a fairly simple accessory pattern and I thought I’d found a math error.  In a set of regular decrease rows, the number of stitches suddenly seemed to jump from 18 to 6. Oh, the designer must have accidentally left out a couple of the decreases, I thought, I’ll have to check in with them to find out if it was just a copy and paste error or if we’re going to have to figure out what adding these extra rows is going to do to the length.  I even got as far as opening my email and starting to write to the designer, when, upon flipping back to the pattern file to reference the issue, I realized I had nearly made a very silly mistake.

Because it was a simple pattern, the pattern had begun “work in [stitch pattern] for 3 inches.”  Then in the decrease row section, every single row was written like this:

Next Row: K2tog (K20, K2tog) 3 times, K to end.

Next Row: Work in pattern.

Next Row: K2tog (K19, K2tog) 3 times, K to end.

Next Row: Work in pattern.

Next Row:

And on, and on, for almost 20 rows of “Next Row” instructions. The pattern was in a two-column layout and the Next Row section started at the bottom of column one and ran over the first half of column two. Because I had zoomed in to read the bottom of column one, the first few rows at the top of column two were being cut off, and what I saw was:

There was no math error at all – the missing rows were on the page, just not where I could see them. However because the rows were all labeled “Next Row” I also had no easy visual cues to tell me that I had skipped over any rows.  This could have very easily happened to a knitter reading a pattern on their phone or tablet who had zoomed in to read the bottom of a column and forgot to scroll back up.

I proposed to the designer that we instead number each of the decrease rows as Decrease (Dec) Row 1, Dec Row 2, etc. Now even on a zoomed in view of the pattern you would see the following and immediately realize there must be rows you aren’t seeing:

It’s not always the best option to have continuous numbering in a pattern.  “Next Row” labeling exists to help with those tricky situations when one size is on Row 50 while the next size is on Row 55, when the pattern instructions advise you to work for a certain length instead of a certain number of rows, or when a set of row repeats means that you work the “Next Row” when it is Row 20, Row 26, Row 32, etc.  But it is possible to overdo Next Rows and make your pattern difficult for knitters (and tech editors) to keep track of their place in the pattern.

My personal rule of thumb is that more than three consecutive Next Rows in a pattern is too many – at that point I will usually recommend to a designer that we come up with some kind of subgroup labeling whether it’s “Decrease Row 1, Decrease Row 2” like in my example above, or “Armhole Cast-off,” “Join Body,” or “Begin Neck Shaping” if each row has a distinct purpose.

When writing a pattern, you don’t just need to be technically correct, you should also keep in mind the experience of a knitter working your pattern – if it’s too easy for a knitter to lose their place or accidentally work the wrong row of instructions they will get frustrated, and in the worst case scenario, tell other people that they found your pattern hard to follow and they wouldn’t recommend purchasing it. (I have definitely had conversations like this at my knit night when a friend has hit a wall with a hard to follow pattern.)

Have you encountered a few too many “next rows” in a pattern? If you’re a designer, how do you prefer to handle a section of instructions where numbering doesn’t really work?