About this site

An essay asks for sustained reading; a photograph asks for looking; a research project needs a way back to its methods and evidence. Their proximity here is deliberate, but it does not give them the same purpose or the same standard of completion. The site is both a publication and a selected portfolio. Neither role makes it an exhaustive archive.

Work comes before professional context. Credits, earlier activities and public records are kept in separate back matter so that they can be checked without becoming the explanation for every poem or image. A link to evidence supports a specific claim, not the standing of the whole practice.

The warm ground, dark type, fine rules and numbered margins borrow the organisation of an edited publication, not the simulation of an old sheet of paper. Prose and verse have room to develop; monospaced labels distinguish dates, sequence and other publishing information. Repeated alignments make different kinds of material legible without forcing every item into the same card.

This restraint also produces authority. A careful grid can make an unfinished project appear more settled than it is. Status notes, sources and version dates therefore matter as much as the typeface: they keep visual coherence from standing in for proof. The same problem appears in Poetry Voucher, where an elegant storefront offers typography as an upgrade.

Font families are assigned by writing system and reading role rather than as national costumes. Shared metrics do not make Chinese and Japanese glyph conventions identical. Coverage and fallback need checking whenever the copy changes; a consistent colour of type is not sufficient evidence that the right character form is present.

English, Hong Kong Traditional Chinese, Simplified Chinese, Japanese, German, French and Russian are separately maintained editions. English is the default entrance, not the original language of every work. An interface change does not silently turn a Chinese poem into an English original; some long-form texts remain in their stated publication language.

The Chinese literary source, its Simplified script mirror and its translations have different editorial roles. Script conversion is not another translation. A translation may have to make a subject, tense or relation more explicit, and that choice can alter what the poem leaves open. Preserving line and stanza counts catches structural drift; it does not certify a literary reading.

The editions retain common navigation and source relationships, but their line lengths and glyphs need not look identical. This is a shared publication across languages, not a promise that seven languages produce the same page, or that every translation has received independent native-language review.

The A/B sequence, poems outside that sequence and the two dated drafts of The Roof Splits Open retain their distinctions. A later text is not automatically a replacement for every earlier one. Keeping drafts beside each other makes revision available for reading rather than hiding it behind a claim of finality.

A selected photograph, a research diagram and a digital receipt specimen are different kinds of image. Their captions should identify what they show and what they cannot establish. A screen proof is not a photograph of a print; a map is not evidence that every proposed research phase has been completed. Sequence and captioning do this work without making the images carry a résumé.

Drucker’s performative materiality directs attention to a system in use, not its structure alone. ^[1] Here that question is practical: can someone return to a stanza, compare a version, follow a source or change the conditions of reading without losing the text? A decorative resemblance to a book cannot answer it.

The reading controls can switch between the default typeface and OpenDyslexic, then change type size, spacing, measure, layout, motion and contrast. These are alternative ways of encountering the same material, not inferior versions of the design. Keyboard focus, headings and text alternatives remain part of publication, even when they are not the most conspicuous things on the screen.

Automated checks can find some missing labels and layout failures. They cannot stand in for a person using a screen reader, or prove that an image description gives someone an equivalent encounter. Accessibility is a continuing editorial responsibility, not a badge awarded by a test suite.

Most editorial and implementation work on this site is the author’s own. AI was used to review the website’s interaction logic and visual presentation; the author assessed that feedback and made the final decisions. This does not assign the same production history to every poem, translation or photograph.

Source files, generation tools and version history help identify what has been changed and what is being shown. They do not by themselves establish literary quality, a successful physical print, an audience’s response or institutional endorsement. A project’s own account and an independently checkable record should remain distinguishable.

The scholarly references on these pages are tools for examining decisions. They were not all starting points for the work. Comparison is useful where it reveals a difference or a limit; a list of recognised names cannot supply a missing experiment or make the reader’s response predictable.