Review this map of B'rachaspace!

Question

[Inspired by this site, this question is a solicitation for review of a product, copied below. Scale is not intended to be significant.]

טבלא לסוגי ברכות

Is the inclusion of a "mi'deoraitah" space enough to make it clear the rest is "mi'derabanan"? (assuming that is the case)
@ArielAllon I am troubled by that as well. Similarly with aruka as !_k'tzara_. Is there a good way to represent those clearly? It was supposed to be so easy. . .
If you have a legend (as suggested in my answer), you can indicate mid'oraysa with a pattern and write "(the rest is mid'rabanan)", perhaps.

msh210 · Answer 1 · 2011-07-12 18:49:23Z

Re 5, legibility: It's not clear which area is denoted rishona. Similarly, the notation for b'racha k'tzara, to signify that it covers the large upper central rectangle, is not neat, at best, and not clear, at worst. I think perhaps put the words on the side in a legend and simply have overlapping colors and/or patterns for the different types of b'racha.
Also, for clarity, avoid non-convex areas (which is what rishona and mid'rabanan now are). To that end, the acharona box can have its left end flush with the left end of the outer box and its right end flush with the right end of the hashevach box, and the mid'oraysa box can have the same width as the outer box. Every area of interest would then be convex except rishona, which would be a non-convex hexagon (it's currently a non-convex octagon): still not ideal, but better IMO.
You seem to be missing most of the b'rachos found in sh'mone esre.

thanks for the review. Re the b'racha k'tzara rectangle, if it were colored or hatched, it could appear that it was the extension of nehenin and rishona as well. Is there a way to avoid that? And speaking of those two, I believe they are fully overlapping sets. What would you recommend for Mid'rabanan?
@WAF, re a way to avoid: Yes: have a legend. One color or pattern will clearly be for hanehenin and one clearly for k'tzara.
Re sh'mone esre, I was mentally including them in shevach. Is that too simplistic? Too wrong?
@WAF, I thought shevach describes the first three b'rachos of sh'mone esre, bakasha the next thirteen, and hodaa the last three. Or is that categorization scheme somehow independent of the one you're using?
@WAF, re rishona (commenting on your comment of 2011-07-12 18:59:12Z): Ah, I thought by rishona you meant everything that's not acharona. Dumb of me, actually. So it's fine shape-wise. And so would mid'rabanan be, if you expand the boxes I mention expanding.

1 Answer