I think it would be better to change the image than make this change. I’ve also debated making a suggestion regarding this image and including one similar to what is included in Kaplan 2.1. I think the current image is not the best example for distinguishing these categories. Instead it should be Stereoisomers split into conformational and configurational isomers. Configurational isomers split into enantiomers and diastereomers and diastereomers split into cis/trans.
This is supported by Kaplan 2.1 Structural isomers:
tereoisomers differ in how these atoms are arranged in space (their wedge-and-dash pattern), and all isomers that are not structural isomers fall under this category. The largest distinction within this class is between conformational and configurational isomers. Conformational isomers or conformers differ in rotation around single (σ) bonds; configurational isomers can be interconverted only by breaking bonds.
Unlike conformational isomers that interconvert by simple bond rotation, configurational isomers can only change from one form to another by breaking and reforming covalent bonds. The two categories of configurational isomers are enantiomers and diastereomers. Both enantiomers and diastereomers can also be considered optical isomers because the different spatial arrangement of groups in these molecules affects the rotation of plane-polarized light.
Cis–trans isomers (formerly called geometric isomers) are a specific subtype of diastereomers in which substituents differ in their position around an immovable bond, such as a double bond, or around a ring structure, such as a cycloalkane in which the rotation of bonds is greatly restricted.
I think I land in about the same boat:
Stereoisomers are made up of configurational and conformational. Stereoisomers isn’t wrong, per se, but it’s the less specific term.
The more ideal solution would be to find an image that’s a better fit.
TL; DR: would, I think, rather alter the image to more closely hew to the text than vice-versa.
Open to further ideas and discussion, though.
Haven’t really been able to find a good clearly open source example. I’ll continue looking but If I can’t find one I might just end up making an image for these relationships.
Takes up a bit more real estate but hard to argue it’s not more precise than its predecessors.
I think this is a case where a little bit of color-coding in the names to draw the eye can be helpful
I agree.
In terms of color coding: a different color for each type or only color the structures relevant to this card?
Man, I’m no graphic designer but my first thought was a box around each name, and at least each sibling for a given row should have a different color to sort of A/B differentiate them.
Like Structural/Constitutional might be green, and Stereoisomer might be blue (I’m just making these colors up, as an off-the-cuff example). At least that way the visual field and the attendant contrast flow a bit, as opposed to just a black-and-white blueprint.
But, even still, it’s already an improvement on the old image, imo
Woof. Yeah, this is one of those moments when I wish I had some (read: any) abilities in visual design
Surely if we can put people on the Moon there’s a solution here (I say this confidently, not immediately having an instinct as to the ideal solution here)
Yeah I think that’s a winner
Probably hard to improve much on that, given the space constraints involved
Great! Ill submit suggestions with the new image.