What does it mean to subvert a trope?

Recently, I've been seeing a lot of discussions about works that subvert a given trope. I think I have an understanding of what this means (from context) but can someone offer a clear definition or explanation?

fiction - How to open a novel?

Looking at the function of the beginning of a novel, it is clear that it should hook the reader and draw him or her into the story. Different techniques for achieving the hook have been described, such as an ironic turn, naming extreme stakes, divulging the end, or voicing a general truth.

But if we consider the content of the beginning, what should the beginning of a novel contain? The setting? And if so, how much of it? An introduction to the protagonist? Which aspects of them? The problem, or a hint of it, that they are going to solve?

I'm not asking what I can do. I understand that in writing, I can do whatever I want, if I do it well. What interestest me here is whether there are common conventions (in genre fiction), a way things are typically done, maybe even a well-worn cliché to be avoided, as well as the common order of things (first the setting, then the protagonist, then the inciting incident).

If you can, please explain why that's how it is or should be done.

---

Note.

This question is not about first sentences! A novel takes a bit longer than that to commence. You're not in the story after the opening line. You may be hooked to learn more, but you're not yet there.

That's why I asked: "What should the first sentence / first parapraph / first page contain?" I think of the beginning as a journey into the book, from the first sentence to the first paragraph to the first page and so on, until the reader has arrived in the fictional world on somewhere around page four.

I had expected your answers to address the whole of the beginning, but in some answers my question has been misunderstood and they address the opening line alone. I have therefore edited my question and replaced the phrase above with "beginning".

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding my wording has caused.

I have asked a question about the opening line here.

website design - Clients always think they are a better designer than I am.

When I am designing a new website or application I am very meticulous to get every detail right so it is beautiful while still user friendly.

Almost always however, the client has better ideas. They request awful changes and by the time they are satisfied, I am ashamed to call it my work.

I end up wasting more time, and the product ends up looking less professional.

What can I do?

Is this a common problem to others? Is there a way to convince the client that you are the designer and they should trust your expertise (without sounding condescending)?

Am I just dealing with the wrong type of clients?

Or is this just the way it is, and the sooner I accept it, the better it will be?

What are your experiences?

Answer

Yes, this is a typical issue. At its core, it's a client thinking that their solution should be designed around their personal tastes rather than around particular business requirements that will meet the needs of their customers.

The key is to talk in business terms, not in subjective art terms. Be prepared. Study your customer's business, their industry, and, ideally, their customers. Back up your design decisions with as much objective reasoning as you can rather than subjective tastes.

Graphic design, itself, can be considered an art and a craft. The industry, though, is all about selling. You need to sell your solution. Put on your sales hat. Do your research, and show the client why your solution is the one that will work for them.

Of course, there are still clients that just want you to make that home page with purple and pink stripes and an 8 minute animated flash intro no matter what you say. For those clients, you do the work, bill them, then scratch them off your list of customers you will do business with again. ;)

forms - Splitting credit card number fields into four different inputs

I have previously been using 4 fields for the credit card number, splitting up each set of 4 numbers to make it easier to enter.

I am now thinking about having one field, which inserts spaces after every set of numbers instead:

For the one with 4 fields, the cursor jumps to the next field automatically.

Which format is preferred? Or are there any other better alternatives?

I only accept Visa, Mastercard and Discovery, with 16 and 17 digits.

iconography - What's a good icon to represent how difficult a task is to do?

I am working on an application where users get to rate various things. In one category, they are rating how "good" something is, and so I put together a little 1-5 rating system with star icons, like Netflix has.

But now I need a way for users to rate how difficult a task is, again from 1-5. I'd like to use the same sort of UI element, ie users can select from 1-5 of something to enter their selection. What is a good icon to use for this?

P.S. I know this question is related, but as this is a business application, I don't think I should use icons of skulls or daggers. =)

Answer

I think that color will work better here than icon shape.

terminology - Is there a difference between affordance and discovery?

Looking at the UX principles that mozilla use as keywords to tag bugs in bugzilla it looks like ux-affordance and ux-discovery are very similar:

ux-affordance — controls should visually express how the user should interact with them. [Source: Norman]

ux-discovery — users should be able to discover functionality and information by visually exploring the interface, they should not be forced to recall information from memory. (This is often the nemesis of ux-minimalism since additional visible items diminish the relative visibility of other items being displayed). [Source: Nielsen]

Are these just two ways of looking at the same problem, or are there UX issues that would fall under one principle but not the other?

Update:

Perhaps the tag-wiki definitions on this site could be updated based on the responses to this question. They are currently:

Affordance is a property of an object that naturally indicates how the object can be used.

And for discovery:

the process by which a user learns what a program can do through affordances in the UX.

Answer

According to CodeAcademy, potentials for interaction are collectively called the affordances of an object. The visual cues or other aspects of an object that a designer uses to indicate potential and intended affordances of the object are called signifiers.

"The concept of 'affordance' has captured the imagination of designers. The term was originally invented by the perceptual psychologist J. J. Gibson to refer to a relationship: the actions possible by a specific agent on a specific environment. To Gibson, affordances did not have to be perceivable or even knowable -- they simply existed. When I introduced the term into design in 1988 I was referring to perceivable affordances. Since then, the term has been widely used and misused. The result has been confusions and a goldmine for academic scholars who get to write learned articles about the true meaning of the term."

fonts - Is there a standard for categorizing typefaces?

So I was reading two documents on typography and each classifies font types in completely different categories.

• One document says we have : serif, sans serif, text, script, display and dingbats.



• The other document says we have : roman, egyptian, sans serif, script and miscellaneous (to attract attention).

I went over different websites and each seems to "make up" their own categories (like slab serif).

So is there a standard way of categorizing fonts or is every one free to invent his/her own categories?

Answer

Typefaces are a fairly rich area of creative evolution so there are a lot of different facets to them that can be described in a lot of ways.

The categories you give overlap each other, even within the same document. For example, a display typeface can also be serif or sans-serif. So they aren't all divided up into mutually exclusive categories; a typeface can belong to multiple categories based on its features.

Roughly put

• Serif/sans-serif refer to the presence or absense of serifs.



• Script typefaces are based on calligraphy (but usually not including blackletter, which is in a specific category of its own).


• Display/book refers to whether the typeface is intended for large short words like posters and logos, or lengthy body text such as in a book. Not every typeface is one or the other, though.


• Roman is often used to describe traditional/transitional serif typefaces that aren't italics.


• Egyptian has been used in a couple of different ways; sometimes to describe a "slab serif" and at other times it's even been used to describe sans-serif.

There are also lots of other terms such as

• Grotesque, grotesk and gothic have been used as alternative terms for sans-serif.


• Blackletter is a specific type of hand-lettering very popular before the printing press. Sometimes also called gothic script (not to be confused with either gothic or script).


• Italics are slanted forms of typefaces with some changes made to look more like hand-lettered text (that is a pretty basic, and inelegant, description).

and many more.

I'd probably generally group fonts into serif, sans-serif, script, and other (and possibly blackletter). Other may include stuff like this.