≡ Menu

Poll: Which document format do you prefer for the Common Draft contract-clause annotations?

I’ve now posted working drafts of three chapters of the Common Draft an­not­a­ted contract form book. I’d be very grateful for feed­back in the comments be­low about the following:

  • Symbology: What do you think of the colored-triangle symbols used in the Definitions chapter, such as and , to indicate how controversial a clause is likely to be?
  • Format: Which of the following document structures do you prefer?
    • The linear format used in the Definitions chapter, in which commentary is set out immediately following each clause, with a separate table of contents at the beginning; or
    • Footnotes with clickable links, along with a separate table of contents at the beginning, as used in the General provisions chapter; or
    • Collapsible clauses and commentary, in which the collapsed headings can serve as the table of contents, as used in the Confidential information chapter.

Please post your opinion in the comments below. Thanks in advance!

Comments on this entry are closed.

  • Greg 2012-09-07, 11:47 am

    I find the symbology useful and strongly prefer the formatting of the “Definitions” section. Thanks for compiling such a useful resource!

  • Eric Adler 2012-09-07, 1:56 pm

    Confidential Info chapter looks nice, but link is broken. http://www.oncontracts.com/confidential-information/

    I really like the “controversial” level semiotics. Maybe use less saturated greens and reds. That might make them less distracting, but still informative.

    My vote is “linear format.” But I would set the clauses in black letters on white background. The commentary could be gray on white. To my eye, higher contract text suggests more important text.

    Thanks for putting this together.

  • D. C. Toedt 2012-09-07, 2:28 pm

    Thanks Greg and Eric — valuable feedback. (Eric, I fixed the link.)

On Contracts is Stephen Fry proof thanks to caching by WP Super Cache