Dont Mistake Legibility for Communication Analysis

Dont Mistake Legibility for Communication Analysis CRITICAL STUDY IN ART DESIGN DONT MISTAKE LEGIBILITY FOR COMMUNICATION David Carson | Discuss It is the art director, graphic designer and surfer David Carson (b. 1954) who stated during his 2013 TED Talk, Dont mistake legibility for communication. Since making this statement, designers have had to rethink what it means to communicate; especially when attempting to interact and engage with their target audience. However, is Carsons statement true? As it can be argued that legibility is the basis for something to not only be readable but also understood and therefore communicated. Conversely, if communication is the goal then the aim is more than just making something legible. Therefore, this discussion will explore and present arguments for and against the statement Carson made, define and explain the terms legibility and communication, and to document the social and historical context behind Carsons statement to establish whether it was valid or not. To begin, when something is being communicated it can be received by the audience visually, verbally, nonverbally or in its written form. The field of a Graphic Designer is visual communication as they attempt to incorporate, or least infer these elements through their designs. For that reason, visual communication or more specifically, production in print, will be the focus for this discussion as that is what Carsons statement pertains to. In regards to Carsons statement, the word legibility is mentioned. This word can be simply defined as how recognisable individual letterforms are (Tselentis, J et al. 2012 p. 324). In a segment of Carsons 2003 Design And Discovery TED Talk, he presents the following image with his statement: Carson then goes on to say the following about his image (Figure 2) and gives his opinion about the statement in regards to legibility and communication, where he states, I like this [image] for a couple of reasons. If youve had any design courses, they would teach you cant read this. I think you eventually can and, more importantly, I think its true. Dont mistake legibility for communication. Just because somethings legible doesnt mean it communicates. More importantly, it doesnt mean it communicates the right thing (Carson 2003). As Carson suggests (2003) the primary goal of the designer is to communicate a message. However (in his own words) more importantly, it is to communicate the right thing. The question to then be considered is to ask what communication is in the first place? John DiMarco (b. 1963) in his book Digital Design For Print and Web (2010) explains that communication is a process, in which, . requires a sender (the designer), a message (information or an effort to persuade), a medium (the delivery platform), and a receiver of that message (the audience). Here, it can be understood that during the communication process it is the designers job to send a message. DiMarco (2010) then states that, the goals of such messages are to inform, to persuade, to educate, or to entertain.ÂÂ   The designer having a communication goal in mind then uses the message and medium to reach their audience. Bearing this all in mind, we are then left to ask why is communicating the right thing so important to Carson? In the 2007 Helvetica documentary, Carson states, Dont confuse, legibility with communication. And just because somethings legible, doesnt mean it communicates, and more importantly doesnt mean it communicates the right thing. And vice versa. If something is a very important message, and its said in a boring, nondescript way, then the message can be lost (Carson 2007). The goal for Carson then seems to be that is must communicate the right thing otherwise known as effective communication. The message cannot be lost through the medium. Which would then leads to the message not being received by the anticipated audience. Nevertheless, what is effective communication and how does it differ from regular communication? The difference seems to lie in the way something is communicated. It can be argued, (as Carson seems to) therefore, that this is just as important, if not more important than the content of the message itself. This point is noted by Art Director and Graphic Designer Kaitlyn Wells (b. 1988) who suggests (2011) to communicate does not mean the designer has to send a message which is merely legible. As for Wells, legibility in itself does not equate to communicating effectively. In her blog post Dont Mistake Legibility for Communication Wells writes, Just because you can read it, doesnt mean it is communicating the intended message. David Carson is famous for his crazy typography and his ability to connect emotion, design and key messages in an effective, impactful way.ÂÂ   Some of it is legible, some of it is not, but all of it delivers a message (Wells 2011). Here, Wells makes the distinction between legibility and effective communication, noting how important it is to make sure that the audience actually receives the message through the emotion behind it and not just the content of the message itself. For Carson, it is not sufficient for something to merely be legible, as it is only one of the potential tools that can be used to achieve the end goal of communicating a message. Carson seems to be able to attract his intended audience in such a way that he not only gets his message across but manages to emotionally connect and engage with them as well. In The Emotion Thesaurus (2012)Ackerman and Puglisi state that the sole reason people pick up a printed production is . to have an emotional experience. They read to connectIt can be argued that this is the same communication goal of Carson too. This can be further demonstrated through some examples of Carsons designs in the Ray Gun publication (1992) which Carson was the art director of: According to DiMarco (2011), after Carson was appointed Art Director for the Ray Gun publication its circulation tripled, emphasising the effectiveness of Carsons designs. DiMarco then states that the magazine was created as an anti-glossy, anti-establishment manifesto that became a synonym of rock roll, rebellion and alternative spirit. This was the audience that Carson was attempting to reach. Therefore, the layout design needed to not only reflect this but to find a way to effectively communicate and connect with his audience as well. In Carsons TED Talk he speaks about the following car garages (see figure 6): Here Carson points out that the two car garage doors displayed (see Figure 6) are both legible and communicate the same message. However, the way the message is communicated is different. As it can be seen that the garage to the left is legible and the message is clear NO PARKING. Stylistically the way that this message has been presented would likely be seen as generic, informative and neutral. Conversely, it could be argued that the garage to the right gives the reader a different feel as the message would likely be interpreted in a different manner to the garage on the left. As the garage to rights with its NO PARKING message has a bold and humanistic style which seems to give it a different tone to the intended viewer. Although it could be argued that this is unintentional the feeling seems to persist nevertheless. The underlining of the same NO PARKING message seems to emphasise the gravity of what is being communicated. All of these stylistic elements add to the way the message is intended to be received by transmitting through the text the emotion of the message. Moreover, other examples of text being written in capitals tend to convey the emotion of anger and often transmits the message of somebody shouting; which in both cases demands that the message being communicated is to be taken seriously as it has been delivered in a direct and effective manner. Carson (2003) himself then goes on to explain about the garage doors in the following way, Im a big believer in the emotion of design, and the message thats sent before somebody begins to read, before they get the rest of the information. That area of design interests me the most. These are a couple of garage doors painted identical, situated next to each other. So, heres the first door. You know, you get the message. You know, its pretty clear. Take a look at the second door and see if theres any different message. O.K, which one would you park in front of? Same colour, same message, same words. The only thing thats different is the expression that the individual door-owner here put into the piece and, again, which is the psycho-killer here? Yet it doesnt say that; it doesnt need to say that. I would probably park in front of the other one (Carson 2003). For Carsons own designs, it seems his focus is on the way he communicates his message. Carson appears to designs his layouts intuitively to create a visceral reaction and response. His designs must connect with his audience emotionally for them to be effective and even if the content of the message cannot do this alone then the way the message has been designed will help the communication process of achieving Carsons communication goal. This can be seen in his designs for The Book Of Probes by Marshall McLuhan. Whilst it may seem that Carsons statement cannot be refuted there have been those that have done so. One example of someone that has vehemently disapproved Carsons methodology, is design writer Joe Clark. In his article titled Illegible David Carson cannot communicate originally published in the Globe and Mail (1995), Clark writes that, Typography is supposed to be invisible. If the intended reader actually notices the typography and graphic design on a page, then youve failed as a designer. The goal of communication is achieved only when typography does not distract (Clark 1995). This line of thinking was influenced from Beatrice Wardes (b. 1900) lecture titled, The Crystal Goblet, or Why Printing Should Be Invisible (1930). Both Clark and Wardes focus is on the content of the message and that the legibility of the message detracts from what is trying to be communicated. Otherwise, the message can be distorted where the information that is trying to be communicated is not what was originally intended. DiMarco (2011) notes how Carson, broke the rules in every way. including negative leading, overlapping, layering, and creating absurd compositional layouts, such as backwards text settings and columns of texts that bled off the page or aligned or overlapped each other. This can be seen in below (figure 8). In Noah Reads article (2009) in regards to Wardes lecture he notes that, Warde asserts that the purpose of written text is thought transference and any type that does anything to distract from that goal is a failure in its purpose. Type is there to illuminate the thoughts and ideas contained in the written word (Read 2009). Here, Read highlights how Warde deems anything that detracts from the content of the message to be a failure in its purpose. In relation to Carson, this would be a failure in his attempt to communicate with his audience. For Warde, the text used in the message should only be implemented to aid the content and the content alone. However, as mentioned earlier, Carson has demonstrated that he arranges the type to effectively communicate rather than to merely share the content alone. For Clark, in his article he rebuked the Ray Gun publication by noting that, Every single typesetting rule of thumb you could possibly come up with has been broken in Ray Guns brief history: Overlapping blocks of copy; light text against dark backgrounds; dark text against dark backgrounds; running text across pages, including stories that are read horizontally across columns (just hop over the gutter between them); deliberately running photos upside-down (Clark 1995). For Clark it seems as if he felt Carsons, Dont mistake legibility, for communication statement was taken to the extreme where because both the message was legible and the audience could misinterpret its intended point too through the way it was designed; then for Clark surely the communication and intended message failed, as the design was illegible in its content and missed the mark in its execution. However, this assertion of Clarks is subjective at best and judging by the sales of the Ray Gun magazine it is presumptive at worse because as mentioned before the publication sold many copies to those prior to Cason design. Additional to this point, it was the philosopher and Professor Marshall McLuhan (b. 1911) who wrote in his book Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (1964) that, the medium is the message. By this, he meant that it is the form of the medium, not the content of the message or even the message itself that is most important. An example, which could argue how Carson supports this theory is where he employs a similar idea into one of his articles for the Ray Gun magazine publication where he uses the Zapf Dingbat typeface. In regards to Carson using the Zapf Dingbat typeface, he states in an interview with Design Boom (2014) that it was one of his favourite briefs. During the interview he shares, We had a new writer from a much bigger music mag, and I was really excited to read this article when it came in. but I was really disappointed to find it was like sooo many others: the writer had been given 10 minutes before the performer went on stage to do his entire interview, and as such he reported the typical stuff like what the singer was wearing, what was in the room etc. boring stuff Id read so many times before. I started going through my fonts, finding nothing that felt right, then came across dingbat. Which would have been the last one on my very extensive list, as its known by the designers name zapf dingbats. Im sure I chuckled a bit, then thought, well, why not? It was a really boring article. So the entire article was set in zapf dingbat (Design Boom 2014). This exemplifies that for Carson communicating his work was more than using words alone but even the piece itself could be communicated through the medium rather than with merely the content. Especially if the content served no purpose in taking the reader on an emotional journey It could be inferred that the purpose the Zapf Dingbat that was to do precisely that to bring excitement, joy and humour to what would have been a boring, dull tedious article. David Carsons statement (2003) Dont mistake legibility for communication is both challenging and thought-provoking. As stated beforehand, not all designers would agree with Carsons evaluation of effective communication. As Carsons statement seems paradoxical at first but when understood in its proper context it appears to be congruent when seen in light of his work. However, when compared with traditional teachings and lectures as to how typography in publications should be treated, it can be argued that the designer could fail in making his or her work both illegible and even worse this may lead to the message of the designer not communicating its desired effect too. Nonetheless, to confine communication to only being something that can be achieved through legibility in content only takes away from what effective communication can be. Taking this into consideration, despite his critics and given his numerous supporters, it is still justifiable to argue that Carson has made a salient point in the Graphic Design world; as it is still relevant today as it was when he first stated it. Consequently, it can be strongly argued that it renders Carson statement, Dont mistake legibility for communication as valid. Reference List Books Tselentis, J., Haley, A., Poulin R., Seddon T., Leonidas G., and Saltz I. (2012) Typography, Referenced: A Comprehensive Visual Guide to the Language, History, and Practice of Typography. Beverly, MA: Rockport Publishers. DiMarco, J. (2010) Digital Design for Print and Web: An Introduction to Theory, Principles, and Techniques. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley Sons. Ackerman A., and Puglisi B. (2012) The Emotion Thesaurus: A Writers Guide To Character Expression. Seattle: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Websites Wells, K. (2011) Dont Mistake Legibility For Communication. Available at: http://www.stokefire.com/2011/06/dont-mistake-legibility-for-communication/ (Accessed: 15 December 2016) Clark, J. (2011) Illegible David Carson cannot not communicate. Available at: http://joeclark.org/design/davidcarson.html (Accessed: 13 February 2017) DiMarco, D (2011) David Carson. Available at: http://www.csun.edu/~pjd77408/DrD/Art461/LecturesAll/Lectures/PublicationDesign/DigitalTimes/Davidi-Carson.html (Accessed: 12 February 2017) Noah, R (2009) Graphic Design Theory: The Crystal Goblet. Available at: https://noahread.net/blog/graphic-design-theory-the-crystal-goblet (Accessed: 12 February 2017) Design Boom (2014) Interview with Graphic Designer David Carson. Available at: http://www.designboom.com/design/interview-with-graphic-designer-david-carson-09-22-2013/ (Accessed: 12 February 2017) TED Talks Carson, D. (2003) David Carson: Design and discovery. Available at: http://www.ted.com/talks/david_carson_on_design (Accessed: 21 November 2015) DVD Helvetica (2007) Directed by Gary Hustwit [DVD]. London: Plexi Film. Image List Figure 1 : David Carson: (2004) Design Indaba Speaker [Profile Picture]. Available from: http://www.designindaba.com/profiles/david-carson (Accessed: 3 December 2016) Figure 2. Dont mistake legibility for communication: Thomas, C. (2013) Legibility Vs Communication in Design David Carsons point of view. [Ted Talk]. Available from: https://postmodernmovieposter.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/legibility-vs-communication-in-design-david-carsons-point-of-view/ (Accessed: November 26 2016) Figure 3. Communication Process: Bowers, J. (2006) A Communication Model. Available from: http://www.jerf.org/writings/communicationEthics/node4.html (Accessed: February 12 2017) Figure 4. Cold Sweat. Carson, D. (1989) David Carson. Available from: http://www.davidcarsondesign.com/ (Accessed: February 12 2017) Figure 5. Ray Gun magazine designs. DiMarco, J. (2011) David Carson. Available from: http://www.csun.edu/~pjd77408/DrD/Art461/LecturesAll/Lectures/PublicationDesign/DigitalTimes/Davidi-Carson.html (Accessed: February 12 2017) Figure 6. NO PARKING: Thomas, C. (2013) Legibility Vs Communication in Design David Carsons point of view. [Ted Talk]. Available from: https://postmodernmovieposter.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/legibility-vs-communication-in-design-david-carsons-point-of-view/ (Accessed: November 26 2016) Figure 7. Book Of Probes. Carson, D. (2002) David Carson. Available from: http://www.davidcarsondesign.com/ (Accessed: February 12 2017) Figure 8. Breaking The Rules. DiMarco, J. (2011) David Carson. Available from: http://www.csun.edu/~pjd77408/DrD/Art461/LecturesAll/Lectures/PublicationDesign/DigitalTimes/Davidi-Carson.html (Accessed: February 12 2017) Figure 9. Breaking The Rules 2. DiMarco, J. (2011) David Carson. Available from: http://www.csun.edu/~pjd77408/DrD/Art461/LecturesAll/Lectures/PublicationDesign/DigitalTimes/Davidi-Carson.html (Accessed: February 12 2017) Figure 10. Dingbat. DiMarco, J. (2011) David Carson. Available from: http://www.csun.edu/~pjd77408/DrD/Art461/LecturesAll/Lectures/PublicationDesign/DigitalTimes/Davidi-Carson.html (Accessed: February 12 2017) Bibliography Books Meggs, P (2011) Meggs History of Graphic Design. 5th edn. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley Sons, Inc. Kunz, W. (2004) Typography: Formation and Transformation: Introduction to Typographic Process. Salenstein: Braun Publisher. Lupton, E (2010) Thinking With Type: A Critical Guide for Designers, Writers, Editors, and Students. 2nd edn. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Craig J., Bevington W., and Koral Scala I. (2006) Designing with Type: The Essential Guide to Typography. New York: Watson-Guptill Publications Inc. Tselentis, J., Haley, A., Poulin R., Seddon T., Leonidas G., and Saltz I. (2012) Typography, Referenced: A Comprehensive Visual Guide to the Language, History, and Practice of Typography. Beverly, MA: Rockport Publishers. Armstrong, H. (2009) Graphic Design Theory: Readings from the Field. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. DiMarco, J. (2010) Digital Design for Print and Web: An Introduction to Theory, Principles, and Techniques. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley Sons. Ackerman A., and Puglisi B. (2012) The Emotion Thesaurus: A Writers Guide To Character Expression. Seattle: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Websites Bradley, S. (2010) Legibility And Readability In Typographic Design. Available at: http://vanseodesign.com/web-design/legible-readable-typography/ (Accessed: 30 November 2015) Thomas, C. (2013) Legibility Vs Communication in Design David Carsons point of view. Available at: https://postmodernmovieposter.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/legibility-vs-communication-in-design-david-carsons-point-of-view/ (Accessed: November 26 2016) Clark, J. (2011) Illegible David Carson cannot not communicate. Available at: http://joeclark.org/design/davidcarson.html (Accessed: 13 February 2017) Wells, K. (2011) Dont Mistake Legibility For Communication. Available at: http://www.stokefire.com/2011/06/dont-mistake-legibility-for-communication/ (Accessed: 15 December 2016) DiMarco, D (2011) David Carson. Available at: http://www.csun.edu/~pjd77408/DrD/Art461/LecturesAll/Lectures/PublicationDesign/DigitalTimes/Davidi-Carson.html (Accessed: 12 February 2017) Noah, R (2009) Graphic Design Theory: The Crystal Goblet. Available at: https://noahread.net/blog/graphic-design-theory-the-crystal-goblet (Accessed: 12 February 2017) Design Boom (2014) Interview with Graphic Designer David Carson. Available at: http://www.designboom.com/design/interview-with-graphic-designer-david-carson-09-22-2013/ (Accessed: 12 February 2017) Lynda Adams, S. (2014) Foundations of Graphic Design History. Available at: http://www.lynda.com/Design-Color-tutorials/American-corporate-identity/166781/363080-4.html (Accessed: 24 November 2015) Saltz, I. (2013) Foundations of Typography. Available at: http://www.lynda.com/Design-Typography-tutorials/Foundations-Typography/106698-2.html (Accessed: 29 December 2015) YouTube Carson, D. (2012) David Carson: David Carson Techniques in Design. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1pQTuJfUi8 (Accessed: 21 November 2015) Puschak, E. (2015) Atemporality: Our Relationship To History Has Changed. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAv5EKvRrco (Accessed: 02 January 2017) TED Talks Carson, D. (2003) David Carson: Design and discovery. Available at: http://www.ted.com/talks/david_carson_on_design (Accessed: 21 November 2015) DVD Helvetica (2007) Directed by Gary Hustwit [DVD]. London: Plexi Film.

Par, Inc.

Here is the report about Par, Inc. , is a major manufacturer of golf equipment test whether the new ball drive longer distance than the current model. To compare the driving distances for the two balls, 40 simple tests both of new and current models were subjected to distance tests. According to the data, we got the information we need for a hypothesis test as follow: | Current| New| Means| 269. 42| 266. 67| Count | 40| 40| Standard Deviation| 8. 09| 9. 79| Confidence Level(95. 0%)| 2. 59| 3. 13| | | The 40 simple of both current and new model golf balls show that the average distance of the new ball drive is less than the current model, but the standard deviation of new ball is 9. 79 which is larger than the current one and It imply the new ball is not stable as the current one, it has more chance drive longer or shorter than the current model. But at present, we can’t get the conclusion which ball drive longer distance, So we need a hypothesis test the difference of this two ball models.The hypothesis test suggested follows: H0:Â µ 1-Â µ 2? 0 Ha:Â µ 1-Â µ 2>0 We use this formula for a hypothesis test to compare the driving distance of the current and new golf balls. After analyses, we get the conclusion that we can’t reject the null hypothesis. Because this is a hypothesis test about two different populations, standard deviation of population is unknown and we use t-test and the p-value we got equals 0. 09 which is much bigger than the confidence level of 0. 05. So it is Type? error and we do not reject the null hypothesis.And we recommend the company to use the new model, that there is more chance to drive longer distance. The confidence interval we got for each model and or the difference between the means of the two populations are given below: Current: 266. 83~272. 00 New:263. 54~269. 80 The difference between two populations: -1. 26~6. 74 As the interval show above, at the level of 95% confidence, the distance current ball can drive is between 266. 83 and 272. 00 and the new one can drive between 263. 54 and 269. 80.And the new ball can drive longer distance till 6. 74 than the current one, but it is possible that the new ball drive shorter distance than the current till 1. 26. I think simple sizes for this test is not enough. Because the population of ball is very big and there are only 40 simples testing. We make assumption that the population of the ball is 1000 the simple size now is 5 and the proportion is 40/1000 and NP equals 1. 6, N (1-P) equals 38. 4. The NP is smaller than 5 so. We need more simple sizes to make the test much exactly.

Case: Balance Sheet and Personal Financial Information

Case Study Companies must report or disclose in their financial statements information about all liabilities, including potential liabilities related to environmental clean-up. There are many situations in which you will be asked to provide personal financial information about your assets, liabilities, revenue, and expenses. Sometimes you will face difficult decisions regarding what to disclose and how to disclose it. Instructions Suppose that you are putting together a loan application to purchase a home. Based on your income and assets, you qualify for the mortgage loan, but just barely.How would you address each of the following situations in reporting your financial position for the loan application? Provide responses for each of the following situations. a) You signed a guarantee for a bank loan that a friend took out for $20,000. If your friend doesn’t pay, you will have to pay. Your friend had made all of the payments so far, and it appears he will be able to pay in the future. For this situation I would be personally liable for the $20,000 he borrowed. It is both a liability and an expense for both parties.When applying for my loan I would have to make sure to disclose that all payments have been made and on time. Since my friend never failed to make any payments I shouldn’t face too much resistance from getting the loan. In my opinion I would not share or disclose this information with the bank since this particular situation does not seem it will become a problem. b) You were involved in an auto accident in which you were at fault. There is the possibility that you may have to pay as much as $50,000 as part of the settlement. The issue will not be resolved before the bank processes your mortgage request.In this case you are have earned a liability and another expense. It would be highly unethical not to disclose such information with the bank. If for some reason you omit this information and the bank finds out about it later, you could b e at fault since you lied to the institution that evaluated their risks without taking in consideration all of the factors involved. It would be wiser to settle your liability of 50,000 dollars before acquiring new expenses. c) The company at which you work isn’t doing very well, and it has recently laid off employees.You are still employed, but it is quite possible that you will lose your job in the next few months. Since the probability of you losing your job is undisclosed I don’t think it would be necessary to disclose any of this information with the bank. However if you receive a loan and lose your job you would still be held liable with this current expense. The only way to make a definite decision is to wait and see what happens with your company, or in the other if you want to take a risk and make the loan it would be unwise to disclose your current possibility of losing your job.

How to Make a Marijuana Tincture

Making a marijuana tincture is an easy way to extract THC and cannabinoids from Cannabis. A tincture is an alcohol-based solution, used to extract organics from herbs and other plants. Tinctures are useful because they isolate certain compounds better than soaking or boiling herbs in water, the alcohol acts as a natural preservative, and medicinal tinctures often take effect more quickly than other administration routes, like eating, drinking, or smoking. Marijuana Tincture Materials A typical ratio of plant matter to alcohol would be 1 gram to 1 fluid ounce (35 ml) of alcohol. Up to 6 grams of Cannabis can be used, depending on your resources and how concentrated you want the end product to be. Do not use any other type of alcohol besides ethyl alcohol or ethanol (e.g., isopropyl alcohol or methyl alcohol), as these chemicals are toxic. Cannabis sativa bud, fresh or driedHigh-proof ethanolFlavoring (optional)Small glass jar with lidBrown or blue glass dropper bottle Everclear is a popular source of ethanol because it is so high in alcohol. 151 rum also works. Be sure to use food-quality ethanol, not denatured alcohol. Denatured alcohol contains contaminants that make it unsafe to drink. Lower concentrations of alcohol will not be as effective for the extraction or preservation. Basic Steps To Prepare a Cannabis Tincture Place the marijuana in the bottle.  Pour alcohol into the bottle, making certain to cover the plant matter.Seal the bottle. Place it in a warm location, out of direct sunlight.Give the alcohol mixture at least a day, but preferably longer than a week to soak. You can shake the bottle from time to time to ensure a good extraction of  the THC and other cannabinoids.Filter the liquid through a coffee filter to remove the solids and reserve the liquid in a dark-colored glass dropper bottle. Avoid using plastic, as the liquid may leach some undesirable compounds from the plastic into the tincture over time. Flavoring may be added to improve the taste of the tincture, if desired.A typical dose would be 3-5 drops, depending on how strong you made the tincture. Start with the minimum amount and see what works best for you. Fast Marijuana Tincture Recipe While the classic tincture instructions are fine, you can prepare a tincture much more quickly if youre willing to put in slightly more preparation time. Also, this method uses less source material (although the tincture is also less potent). This recipe produces an effective tincture in as little as an hour. The disadvantage of the method is that it uses heat, which can damage some of the many cannabinoids in Cannabis if you get carried away. Dont exceed the recommended temperature. Dry about 4-5 grams of a Cannabis sativa bud.Grind the material to increase surface area (speeds extraction).Bake the marijuana is a 240 F over (set for just under 250 F) for 30 minutes. This decarboxylates the matter, improving the extraction of desirable compounds while helping to eliminate unwanted chemicals. Both heat and alcohol can convert  the THCA molecules in the plant matter into active THC.Place the marijuana in 2 ounces of alcohol. Make sure it is covered and seal the container to prevent gas exchange with air.Place the container in a cool, dark location. The longer you allow for the alcohol to extract the cannabinoids, the more potent your tincture will be. You can watch the extraction progress as the color of the liquid changes from clear to green. Once the color is stable (up to 2 or 3 hours), filter the liquid using a coffee filter or cheesecloth. Of course, you can consider the tincture done sooner, but you may lose potency.Store the tincture in a dark glass droppe r bottle. While the alcohol preserves a tincture at room temperature, its fine to refrigerate it to further reduce the chance of mold or fungal growth. How to Use a Marijuana Tincture The ideal way to use this tincture is to apply drops sublingually (under your tongue). Use a few drops and then wait to determine the effect. Cannabinoids are quickly absorbed across the mucosa of the mouth into the bloodstream for distribution to the brain and other parts of the body. If the desired effect is not achieved after the initial dose, a few more drops may be applied.