FACTS bad things.

Create a Post
JRB

JRB

PFG, Picture Framing God
Founding Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2000
Posts
7,107
Location
San Diego, CA
What do you not like about FACTS? What changes would YOU make? Do you think there should even be a set of standards?

FACTS advocates, please stay out of this thread, you have the GOOD thread. Let some people mouth off, if they are going to, without the intimidation.

This is how you can learn, maybe.

Ron, control yourself, it'll be OK, go over to the GOOD thread.

Answers like "I wouldn't change a thing" or "I can hardly recall ever being happier about anything" or " Facts is my cup of tea" are all OK. Try to stay away from the Evangelical preaching, OK?

John
 
Originally posted by Terry Scidmore CPF:
And maybe a FACTS supporter will open up a thread to list problems people have with FACTS - just for balance.
Click to expand...
Glad to see you've become a supporter, John. Welcome aboard. :D

I see plenty of problems with FACTS, but I'll respect your wishes and refrain from listing them here.

No intimidation intended or implied. All criticism and suggestions welcomed. (Have you ever in your life been intimidated by anything, John?)
 
I love debate but I am left out of this one as a truly have no opinion about FACTS. I could easily go either way.

I was just exposed to it 6 months ago. I have no emotional ties whatsoever. My first and current impression of it is, "What in the heck am I reading."

This is a direct cut and paste from the site.

"2.2 Terminology Format—The following words are defined to clarify the importance of sections or formats, and to identify those that are mandatory.

2.2.1 “Shall”—is used to indicate that a provision is mandatory.

2.2.2 “Should”—is used to indicate that a provision is not mandatory, but recommended as good practice.

2.2.3 “May”—is used to indicate that a provision is optional."

WHAT? That is where I started reading and amazingly close to where I stopped reading it.

I have seen this type of writing before in the National Electrical Codebook. I took a whole year class about understanding that book. Few electricians (including me) know how to read and use the book. Even fewer inspectors know how to read and use the book. Why on Earth does something as simple as framing (come on folks is framing not rocket surgery) have to be so complex? I’ll bet that future attempts to “clarify” this matter will further cloud it!

Again I think I like what FACTS is trying but maybe we should remove section 2.XX completely and use “autta” which as everybody know means “you autta do that….,” and “gotta” which means “you gotta do that…” I’m not a lawstudent or a grammarian so as it sits right now it has no significant value to me.
 
I'm with Jay on this, FACTS reading is great for assuring one's self a great night's sleep.

I also agree w/Ron as to wanting to know as much as possible about the good, the bad, and the ugly of what we use in framing.

But come on folks, most of us are "people" friendly. You gotta listen to your customers and advise them to the best of your ability and then, do what they want you to do to their art. If they want it cheap....we do it cheap. If they want it preserved to the best of our ability, then I'll do that too. When someone tells me they want a piece of artwork "conservation framed", I always reply that "I'll do the work to the best standards I'm aware of. I'm sure down the road, there will be something EVEN better." If they want something framed to "museum quality", then they need to find another framer.

Let's face it, the majority of work that comes into most of our shops are posters, photographs, prints and stuff to be framed into memory boxes. I rarely get a piece of artwork that is valued over $1,000. And normally, even on something like that, the customer is trying to figure out how they can get out the "cheapest".
 
Ron, Very little, Jo, I have mild claustrophobia, however it does not stop me from going into such situations, just can't wait till it's over.

Ron, I support the concept of FACTS, It's the presentation that's bothering me. Jay and Janet nailed down my feelings pretty much. I have yet to read very much of it at all.

Someone has made boring into an art form, and FACTS is one of their best works.

There are certain personalities that can't live without this type of writing, they usually pursue careers in law, engineering, and/or bureaucracy's, not picture framing. With the FACTS document, that seems to be changing.

Ron, what field were you trained in?

John
 
John, my degree is in marine geology. I'm supposed to be looking for oil in the Persian Gulf or maybe the North Sea. I haven't studied art since 8th grade, though I did study photography at Brooks Institute in Santa Barbara. Anybody that knows Brooks can tell you it's the furthest thing from fine art photography.

People who have visited my shop might notice that I have a system for everything. Design is a struggle for me, though I've done it for so long that I have a system for that, too.

While I may have the soul of an engineer and I appreciate precision, I could not have written a document like the FACTS standards and it wouldn't be my choice of recreational reading.

But I've read so many technical and owner's manuals that were obtuse, nebulous and inane, that I think I understand the need for precise language when writing standards. If you like, I'll quote some of the maintenance instructions from my Mat Maestro manual.

I also understand the need to a summary document written in more casual language, but I don't think we'll ever see one that is chatty or entertaining.

Still, it might be fun to let Dave Berry have a crack at it and see what he'd come up with.

Keep talking. We're listening.
 
If we are going to have documents summarize our industry, I would like to be sure that the process of creating those documents is solid and trustworthy.

1)That the passes and ballots have "return" dates on them and a reasonable period of time for the participants to consider them. The time line for the project should be stated at the beginning of the project.

2)That the reference materials cited as being the basis for the documents are available, appropriate, listed at the start of the project, and that the people who are working on the documents have some way to refer to them if they need to.

3)Where there is no research material to support a part of a document, that should be noted. Ditto for parts of a document where "concensus of knowledgeable and experienced committe members" is used.

4)"No response will be an affirmative vote", and "No response shall be counted as agreement with the majority", if still in effect, is a questionable practice.

5)That a participant may introduce additional research, information, or resources to the document participants for their approval for inclusion as a resource material for the documents.
 
Terry, I believe your history with FACTS is longer than most, but I have never been clear on your objections to the current standards.

Is the process lacking in democracy? Are you suggesting that the standards should be voted on by the framers of the world?

You characterized yourself on another thread as FACTS' biggest PIA detractor. Sorry, Terry, you're not even close. Either is JRB. The biggest PIA with respect to FACTS is the framer who says, "I never heard of it, my brother-in-law never heard of it, I've been doing things the same way for 29 years, so I don't need it."
 
Ron, I'm glad you seperated the words FACTS,
and democracy by putting them is seperate paragraphs.

There you go John. Figure out what my complaint is.

baer
 
Baer, soon as I figure out what PIA means, I'll tackle your question.

John
 
John, I coulda sworn that - at one time - your screen name was "JRB - PIA."

Just in case you really don't know, it means Pain in the As*.
 
Good morning, Ron!

My "objection" to the current and past documents is that I feel some parts of them are nearly impossible for the majority of framers to comply with.

For example, under Max. Pres. 10.00 Spacing, 10.01 .... this separation shall be great enough to allow for the normal expansion or bowing of the artwork. This item is a "shall", which is defined in the terminology that it is a mandatory provision. Hence, if a framer states that they are framing to the provisions of the document, then they must be able to ascertain the normal expansion or bowing of each and every piece of art they frame.

I approached the documents thinking that if I didn't know an answer, that I should be able to find one, or at least find out enough information that I could make a reasonably informed decision. I assumed that the reference materials for the documents might be a source. I looked at other exisiting FACTS documents to see if they dovetailed into the ones we were working on. I approached other framers on some points, and ran them by technical service people to see if answers were reasonably available.

In the end, on certain points, I felt that the requirements of the documents were too far beyond the ability of most framers. On a couple of points, I feel that the documents need further explanation (i.e. FRM 2000 -13.02 - for conservation display, light should be low, with a minimum in the uv range - I would like to see low light defined by something like x amount of foot candles, or the hallway without windows or skylights, or something.) If it is too difficult, too hard to understand, or makes cumbersome demands on the typical framer, I feel that it is unlikely that the documents will be a useful tool.

I have worried about two points I have mentioned before - the always fully inform the client part, and the part about the end user having to determine if the product meets FACTS standards.

Most of the documents simply mirror what has been published and talked about in the industry for a long time, using a different format to present that information. I don't know who wrote the initial documents. We received the documents in a form that is quite similar to what you see now. What we did was suggest changes or clarifications on each pass.

The GAFP project was initially publicized as an idustry wide effort to develop and establish comprehensive information relevant to the framing, display, and care of artwork.

Because so few people worked on the documents, I would have felt more confident in them if they had been circulated around the industry for 3 months before they were finalized. So, yes, Ron, I guess that I think that it would have been a good idea to have had the "framers of the world" vote. Perhaps if this had been done, there would be less arguing about them today.
 
WOW!!! Terry, I didn't think anyone could actually read past the first page. You obviously have and you seem to even understand it. This is proof that there really are some smart people on The Grumble.

John
 
Things aren't happening fast enough with FACTS? Why don't we have this or that or the other thing?

I'd like to remind you, as others have, that the work is being done by volunteers. (I haven't met any attorneys volunteering work on FACTS, BTW.)

I have a huge respect for someone like Terry Scidmore who has put a great deal of work into standards. I'll listen to whatever she has to say on the subject, even if they aren't all that flattering.

I have no respect at all for anyone who wants to sit on the sidelines and make jokes about the work that's already been done and has yet to be done.
 
I am starting to wonder if this has ever been attempted in the past. Compiling a technical definition of every thing we do and use in our industry. It just seems that it would have been attempted back in the 40s or 50s, they loved technical manuals in those days. What became of those efforts, if they even took place? I think the probability is high that it has been done before.

John
 
John, Are you refering to the Picture Framing Proceedures put out by the WPA in 1936 that refers to backing with tan card stock and mounting of Photographs was done with rubber cement if you didn't have rabbit skin glue?

BTW, "PIA" is for those that ain't got no grammer.
Where we use the same ol' PITA, or the more derogatory form of "Tourist".

baer
 
One negative with FACTS is the inconsistant use of language. Hard for me to pin down but somewhere amonst the articles the units of measurement is refered to as "metric" and "the US System" and elsewhere as "metric" and "inches". My feeling was that there are two types that are being refered to which is "imperial" and "metric".
The inconsistancies don't end there but I do feel that this one was rather significant and perhaps not "confidence building" for the articles they appeared in.
 
This may have been previously mentioned, but I find it very difficult doing a FACTS search (via computer). It could very well be me, but when I'm looking for an answer to a specific question, I seldom find it. At that point, I turn to TG or HH 'experts' and occasionally someone will reply...."according to FACTS.........". I'll then wonder how in the world they did it!
faintthud.gif
 
I guess we all have to remember that this whole thing ( FACTS ) was compiled and assembled by volunteers from our industry. That would mean this technical manual is being designed and written my picture framers, not professional technical writers.

These people have obviously put their heart and soul into this project. I have a feeling they have gone well beyond what should be expected from a volunteer.

We can not expect perfection, even though it is obvious these good folks have given it their all, and tried to give us exactly that.

I guess what I am saying is, whether we approve of FACTS or not, we should be kind in our criticism and try to keep the criticism constructive.

I still wish the whole project had never been started, but it has and it now is a definite part of our industry.

The only thing I can push for is a version that is more likely to be read ( FACTS for IDIOTS )and hope it happens.

This document will probably end up in obscurity, collecting dust in the back of a few frame shops unless it ever gets simplified.

I think FACTS needs three things, money and a publisher who will put it into a hard copy and a copy for idiots.

The only trouble with this idea is that the FACTS document seems to be an ongoing work, at least thats what it seems from the current threads on the subject.

OK now for a little tongue in cheek, but also a bit serious. Why not contact the American Bar Association and see if they would be willing to help with this thing? After all, it will help their industry as much as ours.

Whatever happens, FACTS now exists and can and will be used by attorneys, for or against us, should we find ourselves in a courtroom. Our only real protection as an industry is to get it in as many picture framers hands as we can, in a version they can read and understand. More importantly in a version they WILL read.

Just arbitrarily throwing money at this project is not what I have in mind, I would want to know what the goal is for the money being spent. If it is to get an easy to read version into a hard copy, I am for it.

We all know from past experience ( Thanks Bob Carter ) that we CAN raise serious money on The Grumble if we have a mind to. We have to know how it is going to be spent though.

John
 
Bad idea, don't anyone contact the ABA, just too much of a red flag. There are just too many young lawyers who are a little too hungry out there.

John
 
Create a Post
Back
Top