The date in this footnote is correct — we really did check this section earlier today. In addition to rolling out the Texas statutes, we’ve made Texas the first state in our new “Cloud”-based statute processing pipeline. This new platform retrieves, scans, and publishes changes to statutes on a daily basis. It finishes up by creating links to the sources so readers can “trust but verify”.

Over the next few weeks, we’ll be migrating California, New York, and Oregon over to this new system. One note: although Texas is online, we have a lot more work to do for it to meet our standards for a usable, modern reference site. Coming soon are internal hyperlinks, an error checking review, “semantic” searching, and more.

I’ve been re-evaluating fonts for WebLaws.org, and one issue that caught my eye is the style of the numerals. In running text, these proportional oldstyle numbers (font: Buenard) are perfect: they visually flow with the text. The wide variations in figure height and positioning help the reader unambiguously read the number.

But in a vertical navigation bar, I’ve chosen Georgia for its monospaced oldstyle numbers: the monospacing enables the reader to easily compare numbers while scanning vertically. Best of all, the font is already installed on all platforms.

It’s interesting that although the navbar numerals are in an entirely different font (Georgia vs. Buenard), the contrast is not jarring due to the sizes and positioning.

Research Trail

• Figuring out Numerals, the Font Feed blog
• Text Figures, Factbites
• Text Figures, Wikipedia
• Georgia (typeface), Wikipedia

 Related Posts

• Reference text web fonts: ITC vs. URW Baskerville vs. Buenard vs. Caslon
• Getting Baskerville on a website – web font options
• Navigation bar design: Verdana vs. Trebuchet MS vs. Helvetica Neue

I first researched web fonts that I could test inexpensively. Then I tested them on a real web page. Here’s what I found. Currently, text (and nearly everything else) is Helvetica Neue. (All screenshots from a Mac. I’ll post IE tests soon.)

The sidebar is Trebuchet because I found that it’s more legible for small numbers. I like the way this looks, simply visually. But legibility-wise, I believe the text (“The presidential…”) is harder to scan with the eye than it ought to be.

Font of the Baskervilles?

While looking for Baskerville web fonts, I found Buenard via Google Web Fonts. It’s very close to Baskerville, and I find it amazingly legible:

Finally, all the fonts for comparison:

Helvetica Neue
ITC New Baskerville
URW++ Baskerville
Buenard
Caslon 540

My take: In Buenard, the words hold together the best. The letter spacing is tight and the font is heavy. I feel like it’s super-easy to read. In comparison, in Caslon and Helvetica Neue, the words don’t hold together as well. The fonts look good, but for web text to be read on a screen, I think that Buenard is the best here.

Related Posts

• Oldstyle figures for better statute number legibility
• Getting Baskerville on a website – web font options

Here are three examples from the Code of Civil Procedure. The first, sections 676 et. seq. are the way I’d expect, in so-called natural sort order:

But here, a mathematical decimal ordering is in use:

Weirder still, both kinds are used in this group of codes:

Oregon: ORS 164.215, Burglary in the Second Degree.
California: Penal Code Section 459.

+1 for Oregon.

Oregon Burglary Statutes

These screenshots show one problem this creates. For starters, there is no reliable way to provide a good table of contents for a group of California Code sections.

Now, in the legislative business, these names are called leadlines, and they’re usually not part of the actual controlling law. But their usefulness should be obvious: leadlines help everyone write about, talk about, and research the law. And it turns out that these names are important enough that publishers like Westlaw and LexisNexis have created their own for their customers’ use.

California Burglary Statutes — would you have guessed?

From an economic perspective, California is not performing this part of the legislative process, delegating it instead to private companies. And so, the only people with access to this part of the code are those who pay for it. In other words, instead of the cost (of naming their statutes) being distributed across all tax payers, it’s paid by those acutely needing access to the law.

There’s an additional cost to this scheme that all Californians bear, however: inefficiencies resulting from a lack of standardized names. I mentioned that Westlaw and LexisNexis have leadlines for the code. They do differ, of course.

Caveat: I’m new to California law. Is there something I’m missing here? Let me know.

For comparison, here’s the original code as its presented on the state’s website. I’ve been spending a lot of time on the fonts, white-space, outlining, and navigation. Ahead on my roadmap:

• Print feature
• Citations to sources
• Legal news
• Interlinked & related statutes
• Smart search

Coming next: easy access to superseded editions 2009, 2007, and earlier, if there’s a demand.

. . . if you want to cite to judicial law, you must pay to access the Reporter’s opinions.

Sounds crazy, but it’s true.

As a law student I wasn’t aware of the problem. But it frequently holds me back, now that I’m building online information systems. E.g., say some text on oregonlaws.org contains a citation to an opinion, such as

PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 859 P2d 1143 (1993)

. . . one of the most important Oregon cases; and of course law, owned by all of us.

To make the website more valuable to my visitors, I want to grab the text of that opinion and display it. Or, failing that, I’d like to simply hyperlink to it, online.

But neither of these are possible. The unique identifiers we’re provided to this public law: “317 Or 606″, “859 P2d 1143″ — point to resources accessible only behind a pay-wall. If you’re skeptical, try googling for ”859 P2d 1143” or ”317 Or 606“. Zilch.

Quisitive is a one-of-a-kind app for screening name ideas, searching U.S. trademarks, and learning about branding, naming, trademark, and copyright.

We’ve developed it to the same high standards as OregonLaws.org: citations for every piece of information, high readability, and excellent user experience.

See the Quisitive website for more information.

I love gaming. So I subscribe to Big Fish Games for $6.99/month. For that I get one game per month, and a discount on extra ones I buy. Yesterday I checked up on my account and what I saw made me love Big Fish.

I hadn’t logged in for six months, and so hadn’t taken advantage of my monthly game download. But it turned out that I hadn’t wasted my money: I had six months’ credit waiting for me to use. Plus, for getting six games (even though included in the subscription price), they gave me credit for a free seventh. Plus, as thanks for being a member for a year, they’re sending me a plushie. They are awesome; I’ll probably never cancel my service.

Big Fish is doing it right: rewarding customers for their loyalty and giving them the feeling that they’re getting something for their money. I want our customers to feel like they’re getting an incredible value too.

One year ago, we were serving around 75,000 page-views per month. We’re now doing 200,000. Looks like it’s time to upgrade our server plan and do some “scalability” and throughput testing to see how the current architecture is holding up.

John was awarded the Lawyer of the Year award for his pro bono work with Marion-Polk Legal Aid Services elder law clinic known as ELVIS (Elder Law Volunteers In Service).

If you’re interested in joining our sponsors, you can get started here.

Background Info

Every year, the Oregon legislature meets and passes new laws. Many of these update the ORS in various ways. However, the ORS is published only every two years. Therefore, to know whether a statute is really the latest version, getting the latest ORS (currently 2009) is just the first step. One needs to then find out if the section has been amended or repealed. The legislature makes all this information available online: here are the laws passed in the 2010 special session, and here’s the main page for bills and laws.

The Project

Luckily, the legislature’s documents allowed us to parse their documents and integrate the information into the web site. This is because of their very clear structure and concise style. After parsing the data and adding it to the database, we inserted icons and notifications everywhere that made sense. Besides the amended/repealed status, we display the effective date, bill number, session name, hyperlink to the original document, and a summary of the changes. We aimed to make the icons show a little splash of color without distracting much from the content. Personally, I like the way the Chapter pages look now; giving an overview of amended and repealed sections all on one screen. We have some good ideas for taking this further. Examples: viewing the list of amendments, sending e-mail notifications for changes in particular areas of law, and viewing the changes to the ORS in a time line. As always, feedback is welcome.

Examples

ORS 659A.033 — Violation of ORS 659A.030 by denying religious leave or prohibiting certain religious observances or practices, amended, effective July 1, 2011. ORS 166.274 — Relief from prohibition against possessing or purchasing firearm, amended, effective 3/18/2010; ORS 348.117 — Repayment of loans for nursing program, amended, effective 3/10/2010.

Chapter screen providing an overview of amended and repealed sections

Proposed Q&A site for lawyers, law librarians, law students, and others to share information about finding and using primary sources.”

At Stack Exchange.