Talk:Organic Chemistry/Alcohols

We need to clean up the Naming of alcohols section. That table is not very pretty and not particularly useful, I don't think. -- Pete 18:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I pretty much made up most of the Grignard reaction mechanism, interpreting from the drawing and filling in the blanks from what little Wikipedia provides. The part involving esters is pretty much correct, I believe. So, if someone who really understands the Grignard reation with carbonyls can double-check and perhaps correct what I've written, that would be great. -- Pete 03:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if we could use text rather thna diagrams more often? It would benefit readers who used text-reading software, or who need to enlarge text. I realise that much organic chemistry is just plain visual and we cannot accommodate people who can't see too well, but I think some diagrams could be text and it might even save us the time making the diagram...

Not as pretty as the diagram, but more flexible IMHO. What do you think?

Ewen 06:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ewen, Having had some experience with a text readers in the past, I suspect a text reader would not be much more useful than an image for that Though enlarging the text would make it larger, those images are pretty large and you can click to go to the full-size ones.

Honestly, though, my only real argument for the images is I think they look better and part of what attracts people to books is the look. The old "don't judge a book by its cover" is an expression precisely because that's what people do 9 out of 10 times. I do it, and I should definitely know better. I personally find the text-oriented formulas, generally, not very nice and I don't like showing say, an ester as R'COOR". You and I can look at it and say, "Ah, it's an ester", but students of organic chemistry may very well have difficulty realizing that there's a C=O double bond there. I don't mind using that notation sometimes, so that readers get exposed to both, but I definitely wouldn't want it to predominate in a basic textbook. And since that has come up, I'm going to go back and add some information about that in the Functional Groups section just so there is some help in recognizing that kind of notation.

Almost every modern textbook has the diagrams done pretty nicely. As I'm writing, I try to keep in mind the very first sentence of the Forward to this book: "This book should become the gold standard of organic chemistry texts in the areas of accuracy, usability, flexibility, and connection with its audience." If this book is ever to be a gold standard, it needs to look like one as well as be written like one. Anyway, that's just my opinion. It's certainly open for debate. But I'm of the opinion that it would be difficult for us to have too many graphics. -- Pete 14:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I suppose the finesse would be to have the graphic with alternative text for people who need it read for them... Ewen 14:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Does media wiki have support for accessibility features like that? If it does, then I think that's DEFINITELY worthwhile. And that, I think WOULD be working towards the goal of a "gold standard"! -- Pete 14:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just read [page] on Wikipedia's accessibility policy. It appears that the captions are their expectations for reading. I guess we could describe some of the images better in the captions... -- Pete 15:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

This may be just a picky detail, but for the naming section, a lot of the so-called common names are actually approved by IUPAC, at least according to James G. Traynham, who writes in Organic Nomenclature "The IUPAC rules are actually more permissive among styles of names than many authors seem to believe. tert-Butyl alcohol and 2-methyl-2-propanol are both IUPAC-approved names for the same compound..." Perhaps we could replace the IUPAC label with the label "substitutive" instead? -- WilliamJenkins09 04:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply