TEST KNITTING AND WHY IT’S BECOMING A HUGE PROBLEM

I have been known to go off on social rants on this topic; I did it again last week. The topic is complex and nuanced and I thought it was time to actually write about it.

I have a massive concern about this shift in the industry, towards patterns needing to have been test knit before release. I see it a lot – knitters and crocheters saying that they won’t use a pattern if it’s not been tested, in all sizes. And I see designers saying that it’s a requirement for publication. There’s a brewing attitude that test knitting is part of the “due diligence” that designers need to do before they publish. This is a huge problem, and it’s unsustainable.

TL;DR: All patterns need to be checked before publication. But designers should use paid, skilled, professional tech editors. Using test knitters (especially ones that are un- or under-compensated) is not the answer, for a bunch of reasons.

A few people seemed to think that I am saying bad things about test knitters – not at all! Quite the opposite. Test knitters are often great knitters, and – more to the point – very generous with their time. They so often do the testing with very little or even no compensation, for the love of it. My point is that we can’t get into a position as an industry where we need to assume that there will be knitters willing to do this work, with basically no compensation. Yes, many designers provide a free copy of the pattern as compensation, which many knitters are happy to accept. And that’s great. 

When there’s a multi-size pattern, you need testers for every size. That’s 5 or 10 or even 15 testers per pattern. Test knitting is a big, big job. How long does it take to knit a sweater? 20, 30, 40, 50 or more hours? That’s a lot of work you are asking of people. Is a free pattern enough compensation for this? I personally don’t think so.

I find it seriously problematic that for me to make money, for me to run my business, for me to sell things, I am put into a position where I need to rely on unpaid or undercompensated volunteer labour. It’s ethically terrible, and actually illegal.

Makers are being lead to believe that a pattern MUST be tested in all sizes before it’s good. Indeed, the latest post which caused me comment said exactly that. To do this means that a designer needs to find a range of knitters/crocheters in a range of sizes that are all willing to invest that time, usually for free, to a deadline. That’s a big ask of and for the designer. If a designer doesn’t have that many contacts, or that much time, or isn’t willing to ask for that amount of unpaid labour… does that mean the pattern is bad or shouldn’t be published?

I do think that there’s a few things that are driving this, and it started at a reasonable place.

The first is “Test as Preview/Promo”, and it’s becoming more common as the use of Ravelry is changing. We know that makers like to see samples of a pattern worked up, when making their decision about a pattern. Ravelry used to be the place for this, but that’s changed. What some designers do is recruit “preview knitters” to make up a project, usually in a different size/colour/yarn than the sample as photographed, to help show it off differently, to post on social media, and generate attention and clicks. This is a fabulous marketing tool! I’ve used this myself. But it’s not “testing” and by no means should it be mandatory. Also, given that this is marketing support, I would expect that a designer would consider compensation for the knitter…

The next factor that’s driving this use of testers is the move towards more inclusive sizing, and broader size ranges. Part of it, again, is marketing. It’s excellent and important to show a project on a range of body shapes and sizes. But, what a lot of people also mentioned is that larger sizes “need” to be tested, so make sure they work. This speaks to a different issue, actually. A good designer, working with a good technical editor, does NOT need to have a sweater knitted up to know if it “works” for a body (whether large or small). One of the tasks of a technical editor is to assess the garment structure, the shape and the size, to make sure that it works for the body it says it does.

I have worked as a technical editor for over 20 years. Assessing sizing is one of the most important things I do: if you tell me, for example, that your hat fits a baby head, I check that two ways. I check to see if the stitch counts worked at the gauge given produce a hat the size and shape you tell me it does. And then, I check that the size and shape of hat is correct for a baby head. Is the circumference right, is the depth right?

I do that mathematically, and with the use of resources like body size tables.

A designer and technical editor, working together, should be able to assess if a garment will fit the bodies it says it will. This is one of the big tasks of a technical editor. A well-designed garment shouldn’t need testing.

Now, I’m aware that there’s a big issue here, and that’s go to do with the resources. Until recently, there have not been good body size measurements tables available for larger body sizes. This has meant that often the designer has been having to make educated guesses about how to size a garment up, and the tech editor can only do so much to assess the fit, and so test knitters have provided important support here.

But this means we’re making people believe that the only way to assess that a garment fits is by knitting the thing up and putting it on. Absolutely not. That’s absurdly inefficient. And non-sustainable as a business model. Either I pay everyone who knits the pattern up for me, or I don’t – and either way, someone is doing something for free or very very cheaply.

Things have improved incredibly in the last couple of years… the most notable improvment is the public availability of Kim McBrien Evan’s new body sizing chart. working with that, designers can now grade/size a sweater to those larger sizes, and the tech editor can check it, and a maker can also check their own body measurements against the table to see if the pattern will work for them with or without alterations. All without having to knit.

The third factor, I believe, is a lack of understanding of what a technical editor does, vs. a test knitter.

There’s a lot that testers can do that overlaps with a tech editor, yes. But it’s an awful lot faster for a tech editor to check that the stitch counts are right, than knitting the thing up. And, frankly, because you’re working with a professional (and paying them) rather than a volunteer, the designer is allowed to set deadlines, and provide a checklist that they know will be taken care of. That doesn’t always happen with test knitters. Feedback doesn’t always come in a timely way from testers, and tester feedback often isn’t always helpful. Testers, for example, might check the fit for their own size, but they’re not checking consistency of fit across multiple sizes. Testers aren’t checking that instructions are consistent in style with the designer’s other work. Testers often miss fine levels of detail, for example definitions of stitches and checking charts vs. written instructions. 

I was asked recently if a technical editor needs to know how to knit. Goodness, yes! A technical editor must be an absolute expert in knitting; a technical editor who checks a garment pattern needs to understand garment construction, body shape and sizes, and a lot more to boot.

(There’s a separate question here about where to find a good technical editor, that merits a separate discussion. And yes, there’s also the issue that a novice designer may not be able to afford a technical editor; but the answer to this problem is NOT to make a whole load of people do a lot of unpaid/under compensated work. One easy answer, if you can’t yet afford a tech editor, is often to do it as barter – you and the tech editor share skills and help each other out.)

And to be clear: none of this is a complaint about test knitters. Testers can offer other value to a designer beyond promotional and marketing support, too, of course. And it’s all great stuff! I’ve used testers when I’m creating a tutorial, a set of instructions for a technique. I have specifically recruited people with no knowledge of the technique to make sure my instructions are clear. That’s been hugely helpful. And testers can help a designer anticipate where there might be questions that come up, from markers. That’s helpful, no question. But are are either of these a crucial part of the process to prepare a pattern for launch? I would say not – and absolutely not if you’re asking for a lot of free labour to make it happen.

Some testers are willing to do all this for free, and we thank you. And I have relied on volunteers in the past, and I’ve been grateful to them! (And I do try to keep the tasks quick and interesting – no more than an hour of working with a tutorial, for example.)

My base concern is this: we can’t make the expectation that you MUST get work done for free, before you can launch. 

This is twisting things enormously. If, as a maker, you require that a pattern has been tested before you make it, you’re significantly narrowing your choices: you’re going to only be able to choose from patterns from popular designers who have a larger audience from which they can recruit enthusiastic volunteers. You’re going to be missing a lot of great older patterns, or designers who work with technical editors, newer designers who are just building their audience. (Magazine and book patterns never used to be tested and they were created and edited by experts, and they were just fine.)

I also understand that at a basic level, makers need to have some degree of confidence that a pattern is going to be good, is going to work. Back when we were using patterns from books, magazines, yarn companies – patterns published professionally – you could assume the pattern was good. 

(Small side note: do tech editors let mistakes slip through? Yes, it happens. Test knitters aren’t perfect, either. Mistakes happen; humans are imperfect. And yes, using both tech editors and test knitters can reduce the risk of error, but again – we’re back to setting a requirement that I need to have people work for me, for free/undercompensated to run my business. That’s a problem. For particularly complex patterns, a second tech editor or a copy editor can help with this.)

But of course anyone can publish a pattern online. The democratization of the internet permits this, and it’s great. As a maker, before I launch into an expensive and time-consuming project, I want know that it’s going to work. This is why more designers are starting to promote that their patterns have been professionally tech edited. I always take makers to to check social media for finished projects, and read the comments, before they begin something.

Sometimes people push back, saying that test knitters find stuff that tech editors don’t. An awful lot of the time this is very much about the quality of the tech editor’s work. If the tech editor isn’t finding usability and pattern flow issues, if the tech editor doesn’t notice the sleeves are too short: they’re simply not doing the job. 

As for me, this is why I don’t publish patterns any more. I don’t have an audience big enough to recruit the testers, and I simply can’t afford to pay them.