Hyphenation
Nhmiller
off, as my book has text blocks 6 3/4" wide, so those long gaps of space or
words being too spread out are unlikely to occur.
Neil
Cat Paintings At Carol Wilson Gallery
http://www.carolwilsongallery.com
Stella Abzug
nhmi...@aol.comnojunk (Nhmiller) wrote:
First you need to consider your line length... 6 3/4 inchs wide is a
_very_ long line length. The ideal line length is about 55 to 75
characters. If you *must* have a longer line, be sure to add 2 to 4 (or
more) additional points of leading to help th eye track the lines.
Hyphenation should be _on_ ... no matter what the line length ... even
if you set the lines ragged right (which isn't such a good idea). The
eye responds best to very even letter and word spacing. Even with a long
line, the rivers of white space that will inevitably occur are very
distracting.
No matter what page layout program (don't even think of using MS-Word),
you should set the letter- and word-spacing thusly:
word spacing: Minimum 85%, Maximum 125%, desired 100% (PageMaker and
InDesign defaults are almost ok. Quark defalts at a rediculous 50% and
200% -- which is why you often see very poor typography from Quark
documents.)
Letter spacing: Care must be exercised. Most (well designed) typefaces
have good side bearing spacing built into the program. However, it's
better to give the software some leeway to make sure the lines look
good. I often use -5% minimum, 0% desired, and 15% maximum. (Some advise
setting the minimum to 0%-- that is, no negative letter spacing.
Frankly, it _really_ depends on the typeface. Some can take a little
negative letterspacing and some can't.)
InDesign allows glyph scaling. First, noticeable glyph scaling is really
ugly. However, on the basis "if you can't see it, it didn't happen" I
like to give InDesign the freedom to do a very minor bit of glyph
scaling. I usually set this to minimum 98%, desired 100%, maximum 102%.
Again, if really depends on the typeface being used. Never go beyond
97%/103%. Some typefaces are quite sensitive to glyph scaling and
99%/101% are all that you should allow (if your program does this as
part of the letter/word spacing function).
It's important to experiment with these settings to see what looks best
with the line length, point size, and typeface you've selected.
Even if you've set the hyphenation "on" ... be sure to watch for
loose/tight lines. (Turn on the "show violations" feature and your page
layout program will highlight the lines that exceed the letter- and
word-spacing parameters. Due this after you've 'set' a chapter or other
reasonable segment to keep the highlighting from being distracting.) You
will often need to insert manual/optional hyphens and/or force a line
break in a 'better' spot than the software selected. That's part of the
judgement that a typographer brings to the layout. The 'auto hyphens'
feature should be using the dictionary (not the 'algorithm' method) to
split words. Frequently, words will not be in the dictionary or they may
have incorrect hyphens. Other times you'll end up with poorly selected
hyphenation or line break points that interfere with the context.
Set the maximum hyphenations (in a row) to 2 or 3 lines. The "better"
publishers (university presses and others that specialze in relatively
"well set" books) will allow a maximum of 2 lines ending with hyphens
while the larger, publishers usually limit "stacked hyphens" to 3 lines.
Again, when these situations occur, you may need to intervene manually
to ensure the optimum solution.
I can suggest the following books:
The Mac (or PC) Is Not a TYupewriter by Robin Williams, 1990, Peachpit
Press, Berkeley (there may be a later edition).
Using Type Right by Philip Brady, 1988, North Light Books, Cincinnati.
Basic Typography by James Craig, 1990, Watson-Guptill, NY
Typography by Ruari McLean, 1980 and 1992, Thames & Hudson, NY
For the more advanced: The Elements of TYpographic Style by Robert
Bringhurst, 1992, Hartley & Marks, Vancouver. (I don't agree with
everything Bringhurst has to say, but he explains his opinions rather
well)
I also reccommend Type and Layout by Colin Wheildon, 1995, Strathmoor
Press, Berkeley. This book describes the results of many long-term
studies in tyopgraphy and comprehension by a newspaper publisher from
Australia. It sets a lot of myths to rest (including those about the
choice of serif vs. sans serif fonts for body copy and ragged right vs.
fully justified text.) To save you the trouble of finding this book,
English speakers comprehend oldstyle serif typefaces far higher than
they do sans serif typefaces. Well set fully justified text also leads
to significantly greater comprehension than does ragged right text.
Nomen Nescio
>What is the current trend on hyphenation for books? I'm considering turning it
>off, as my book has text blocks 6 3/4" wide, so those long gaps of space or
>words being too spread out are unlikely to occur.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Depending on what software you're using, higher-end programs
like Quark, Pagemaker et al allow you to separately fine-tune
word spacing, character spacing, and character width, making
justified text appear more uniform across the page if properly
adjusted for the typeface you're using. By decreasing character
width by several percentage points, you can get more text across
the page, and make the page appear more uniform. One thing I've
found is that the more you decrease character width, then the
more line-spacing you need to offset it. I usually use 1.2 lines
or more for 100% character width, instead of the default single
line paragraph setting.
But if you're using Word like most of us are using, then the
character-spacing control effects word spacing, and there is
no separate control to adjust character width. At least, you
might experiment with different bodytext fonts until you get
the look you want. Also, try reducing the point-size of your
font from 12 pt. down to 10.5 point therearound. Some fonts
read just fine at 9.5 points, but others must be enlarged to
14 pts., again, depending on the typeface used. Postscript
fonts, like Adobe Type 1 etc., always kern better and print
better than "truetype" fonts.
Ideally, once you've got the best font and font-size selected,
now your hyphenation zone needs to be adjusted until you get no
more than two or maybe three soft hyphens per page for standard
material. If your book contains a lot of scientific information,
such as a post-graduate textbook on chemistry or biology, etc.,
then you'll need to reduce the hyphenation zone to accommodate
unusually long scientific words.
For standard 12 pt. Times New Roman at 6.5" column width, try
setting your hyphenation zone at about .5" for starters. Then
reduce the font size down to 11 point and see what happens!
Most of your soft hyphens will have disappeared, and you may
not see any hyphen on the entire page. That's because the
hyphenation zone needs to be reduced more drastically than the
slight reduction in our font's point-size in order to function.
Try setting your hyphenation zone at .3", and several soft
hyphens should reappear.
Hope that helps,
Daniel
http://www.geocities.com/daniel_joseph_min
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBQYv9GJljD7YrHM/nEQItLQCgthkBCz6Lvwz7HGIKnGTY1jyInCwAnR5R
WjCxB3IfMy+lujt4KfSUgMye
=QynP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
George Orwell
>off, as my book has text blocks 6 3/4" wide, so those long gaps of space or
>words being too spread out are unlikely to occur.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
futureworlds
>off, as my book has text blocks 6 3/4" wide, so those long gaps of space or
>words being too spread out are unlikely to occur.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
@nospamnetspace.net.au Gordon Woolf
>What is the current trend on hyphenation for books? I'm considering turning it
>off, as my book has text blocks 6 3/4" wide, so those long gaps of space or
>words being too spread out are unlikely to occur.
As Stella said, there are accepted standards on how many characters
should be in a line, and it also depends on the quality of your
typesetting.
With programs such as TeX or InDesign which enable reconsideration of
previous lines as well as the current line, the likelihood of rivers
of white are reduced.
We are tending to switch hyphenation off for "normal" book work, but
will switch it on if any text is narrower such as running around an
illustration or table.
It has to be your decision. Run some copy into a template and try
different settings including different settings for the hyphenation
zone. You are presumably doing this already to decide on font, font
sizes, leading, general word and character spacing limits etc. So
hyphenation is just one more variable.
--
Gordon Woolf.
The Worsley Press, Hastings, Victoria, Australia
Book publishers
New book:"How to Start and Produce a Magazine
or Newsletter" fourth edition
<www.worsleypress.com>
John Culleton
> On 05 Nov 2004, nhmi...@aol.comnojunk (Nhmiller) wrote:
> >What is the current trend on hyphenation for books? I'm considering turning it
> >off, as my book has text blocks 6 3/4" wide, so those long gaps of space or
> >words being too spread out are unlikely to occur.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> But if you're using Word like most of us are using, then the
> character-spacing control effects word spacing, and there is
> no separate control to adjust character width.
I think you mean affects, not effects.
If most of "us" are using MSWord for final layout then most of "us"
are planning to fail. It is a bit like entering a highly competitive
marathon wearing work boots. With proper software hyphenation will be
an infrequent occurrence. The software will first seek to lay out each
paragraph without resorting to hyphenation. Thus there is never a need
to turn it off altogether.
There are hundreds of thousands of books published each year. You have
to give yourself every advantage possible.
I used to review books, and one of the telltale signs of an amateurish
layout was the total absence of hyphenation. Others were hyphens used
as dashes, inch signs instead of quotes and so on.
John Culleton
John Culleton
With a proper typesetting program (InDesign or TeX) only those hyphens
that need to be there will appear. There won't be many.
Look at any professionally typeset book from your personal collection.
There will be occasional hyphens. For example on a random page of
Bringhurst's
_The Elements of Typographic Style_ I count 5 hyphens on a page with
37 printed lines. I don't think you can improve upon the typography of
a book devoted to typography.
As I mentions in another post there are several distinguishing
characteristics
of the amateur at work, and total absence of hyphenation is one of
them.
Times Roman is of course another, unless you are publishing a
newspaper.
John Culleton
Able Typesetters and Indexers.
B Perring
certainly book publishers seem to go to great lengths not to use it - to the
point of using fonts that are really quite hard to read - but is there any real
reason for not using Times?
One cannot help but feel there is a kind of 'font snobbery' at work here.
Regards
Sceptical of Surrey
Stella Abzug
bper...@aol.com (B Perring) wrote:
1. Times Roman was designed for use in a Newspaper. It was intended for
narrow columns.
2. Times Roman was designed for letter press printing. Both the dot gain
and pressure of the type into the paper would make the print fuller than
the appearance derived from offset printing or laser printing on better
quality papers. The result is that Times has rather fine strokes and
more thick/thin contrast today than was intended when the typeface was
first designed. This hurts readability.
3. Because Times is the default for most word processing programs it is
over used. Readers appreciate some variety. Times, due to its overuse is
visually boring. A typeface for a book should be selected with the
actual content in mind. A business book should have a business-like
typeface. A romance novel might have something a little more lyrical
(such as one of the Garamond typefaces).
Another overused font, Helvetica, also suffers from being (more or
less) the "official" font of the Federal Government. Most IRS forms and
instructions are set in Helvetica. Now, think of the connection to your
project -- do you really want to remind folks of the IRS, as you would
if you used Helvetica?
Times shows up on annoying letters from insurance companies (your
claim has been denied) and on many other mundane documents of life.
Using Times, you give up the emotional boost that a better selection
might give to your project.
4. It's certainly true that many books are printed using fonts that are
quite hard to read. Part of this is that many books are designed by
designers who do not specialize in typography or books. (Book design, if
it is even offered at a design school, is frequently not studied by most
professionally educated designers.) It's even worse when the "book
designer" is completely self-taught and has little talent.
However, just because many books use poor, hard to read typefaces
(or the typeface is ok, but the general design is so bad that it
interferes with the readability) doesn't mean that a well designed book
using an attractive, appropriate, and readable typeface can't be
produced.
5. Decent fonts are available. A good book font can be purchased from a
reputable vendor for well under $200 (for a complete font family) from
Adobe, Linotype, Agfa, Bitstream, and others. See http://myfonts.com for
selections from these and many other font foundries. If the book
designer has some skill, collections of fonts (of reasonable quality)
can be had at very decent prices. See http://www.fontsite.com for a
collection of 500 fonts for $39.95 (some of these are not very good, but
there are several that are perfectly acceptable, especially when used
with a TeX or InDesign where the letter spacing is handled by the
program (optical spacing) rather than within the font.) The FontSite web
site also has a good primer on the "rules" of typography.
6. Fonts do, indeed, go through "fads" and are sometimes "in" or "out"
due to the "feelings" of designers. Souvenir, once hailed as one of the
most readable fonts every designed was so over-used that there are now
many designers who say thinks like "if I never see Souvenir again, that
will be too soon...." (I recall one point in my youth that half my text
books were set in Souvenir.) Frankly, Souvenir is _still_ a very
readable font and I've used it in at least one book in my career. I also
used it in a computer-organization newsletter I produced for several
years.
7. It takes some time and effort to become educated about choosing fonts
and making reasonable combinations, Will Harris, on the "typofile"
section of his web site contains a rather substantial amount of
information about the proper use of fonts. (Not that I agree with him
100% -- but it's still a good resource.) His "EsperFonto" system of
rating fonts by "formal/casual, friendly/serious, etc. categories is
quite helpful to beginners. His site (which I hadn't visited in some
time) now has a typeface selection system. I entered Minion and selected
a "formal" relationship -- it returned this info: "Impression:
Traditional, cool, serious, businesslike, classic"; Type: (use) "Body,
Display"; and "Pairing: Myriad, Gill Sans, Optima, Univers/Zurich,
Geometric 415." [It missed one other excellent pairing choice, Frutiger
-- but I did say that I didn't agree with everything Will Harris says.]
I hope this answers your question.
B Perring
Absolutely brilliant reply. It's hard to argue with such a
clear and well argued case. I feel sorry for poor old Times, of course, but it
looks as though he was guilty all along and fully deserves his sentence.
So what other cardinal sins do people make apart from hyphenation and Times New
Roman?
Yours, with hat firmly off.
No Longer Sceptical of Surrey :)
John Culleton
Times Roman is a narrow font specifically designed for use in
newspapers.
In general it is too narrow for book work at any reasonable point
size. For maximum readability the text block should be about 65 lower
case characters wide. See any good typography book for more details.
MSWord for reasons known only to Microsoft defaults to this font.
Hence when it is used for a book one assumes that:
a) the author set the book in MSWord, and
b) the author didn't know enough to select a more suitable font.
There are plenty of very legible fonts available free or at low cost
for book work. I like Bitstream Charter but Bookman and Palatino are
other good choices.
Given the above, can you advance a good reason for using Times Roman
in a book?
John Culleton
Able Typesetter and Indexers
B Perring
>in a book?
Well - having (possibly rashly) capitulated in my reply to Stella, I did spend
an hour or two this evening printing up the same page of type using a dozen or
so different fonts, and have to say that 'good old Times' has its good points.
Garamond is indeed a nice font (and I know from experience works very well when
used for picture captions) and so are Minion and many others, but, for use in a
book, the very fact that Times is designed to be used in narrow columns seems
to add to its readability - allowing more words to fall into your field of
vision at any one time.
Also, the familiarity of the font - a reason that you give for not using it -
seems to me to be possibly a very good reason for using it. Ok, I take Stella's
point that you don't want your book to remind someone of their income tax form,
but Times is so universal that I can't imagine it has any particular
association.
With that in mind, I would think Times might be an excellent choice for a novel
because that very familiarity makes the typesetting virtually unnoticeable and
allows the story to emerge without the reader constantly being aware of the
typesetting - rather in the way that it might be argued that good acting is
acting you are not aware of - and that once you do become aware of it, it is no
longer good acting.
Condeming poor old Times just because it happens to be the default font in
MSWord and so is used by people who haven't even considered another font really
does smack of elitism, don't you think?
Regards
Now a Tad Undecided of Surrey :)
John Culleton
> >Given the above, can you advance a good reason for using Times Roman
> >in a book?
>
> Well - having (possibly rashly) capitulated in my reply to Stella, I did spend
> an hour or two this evening printing up the same page of type using a dozen or
> so different fonts, and have to say that 'good old Times' has its good points.
> Garamond is indeed a nice font (and I know from experience works very well when
> used for picture captions) and so are Minion and many others, but, for use in a
> book, the very fact that Times is designed to be used in narrow columns seems
> to add to its readability - allowing more words to fall into your field of
> vision at any one time.
>
> Also, the familiarity of the font - a reason that you give for not using it -
> seems to me to be possibly a very good reason for using it. Ok, I take Stella's
> point that you don't want your book to remind someone of their income tax form,
> but Times is so universal that I can't imagine it has any particular
> association.
> With that in mind, I would think Times might be an excellent choice for a novel
> because that very familiarity makes the typesetting virtually unnoticeable and
> allows the story to emerge without the reader constantly being aware of the
> typesetting - rather in the way that it might be argued that good acting is
> acting you are not aware of - and that once you do become aware of it, it is no
> longer good acting.
>
I agree that a typeface should be unobtrusive. But the mechanics of
reading come into play here Our eyes are used to taking so many words
at a time. We are accustomed to x number of eye movements per line.
This will of course vary from individual to individual. But for all of
us it depends on the familiarity of a certain line length (measure in
typesetting lingo), expressed in letters. Times give us too many
letters at reasonable font sizes.
> Condeming poor old Times just because it happens to be the default font in
> MSWord and so is used by people who haven't even considered another font really
> does smack of elitism, don't you think?
>
It is perhaps a revolt against mediocrity and lazy typesetting and
layout.
I have received novels for review set ragged right for no good reason.
I have received books with hyphens used for em dashes. The infamous
gap-toothed appearance of paragraphs set without hyphenation by an
inferior typesetting engine grates. Occasionally one will see a book
offered with the inch sign " used instead of curly quotes. More often
one will see a string of periods
used for an ellipsis, and varying from use to use. I do object to the
general attitude that typography doesn't matter. It does matter. It is
like dressing for church. You won't be turned away dressed in dirty
levis but it does show disrespect.
Books should be beautifully written and beautifully typeset. If you
prefer your opera well sung, your ballet well danced, your play well
acted, your chip shot placed precisely, then you should also like your
book well made.
As a practical matter, if the appearance is too amateurish reviewers,
acquisition librarians etc. will cast the book aside without a further
glance.
John Culleton
Daniel Joseph Min
>bper...@aol.com (B Perring) wrote in message
>news:<20041115183954...@mb-m26.aol.com>...
>> Condeming poor old Times just because it happens to be the default font in
>> MSWord and so is used by people who haven't even considered another font
>> really does smack of elitism, don't you think?
>>
>It is perhaps a revolt against mediocrity and lazy typesetting and layout.
>I have received novels for review set ragged right for no good reason.
>I have received books with hyphens used for em dashes. The infamous
>gap-toothed appearance of paragraphs set without hyphenation by an
>inferior typesetting engine grates. Occasionally one will see a book
>offered with the inch sign " used instead of curly quotes. More often
>one will see a string of periods
>used for an ellipsis, and varying from use to use. I do object to the
>general attitude that typography doesn't matter. It does matter. It is
>like dressing for church. You won't be turned away dressed in dirty
>levis but it does show disrespect.
>Books should be beautifully written and beautifully typeset. If you
>prefer your opera well sung, your ballet well danced, your play well
>acted, your chip shot placed precisely, then you should also like your
>book well made.
>As a practical matter, if the appearance is too amateurish reviewers,
>acquisition librarians etc. will cast the book aside without a further
>glance.
MUCH depends on the particular market for the book. I doubt
that too many readers are going to be complaining over a few
relatively minor typographical errors and page-layout flaws,
provided the content of the book is sufficiently interesting
to read. That's just my point of view, speaking as a reader,
as an author, as an editor, and as an experienced typesetter.
I was taught that Form follows function. But I could be wrong.
While I hold great respect and admiration for talented artists
in every field of human expression, particularly in fine arts,
I wouldn't expect "perfection or bust" from the average writer,
nor even from the most consummate professional for that matter.
A good plan today is often better than a better plan tomorrow.
Life's too short. Any aspiring author could die tomorrow, so
be sure to get your work out there any way you can yesterday!
Once you've done that, then you can afford to bide your time,
meticulously edit and submit your material to any publishers.
Just as an example, most of us know one or several people who
wear thick glasses and practically _always_ have an open book
in their hands. Thus we can all reiterate these avid bookworms'
testimony that "most books are poorly written, poorly edited,
and are frae end-to-end with glaring typos and misspellings".
And yet, they read them anyway, and they usually enjoy them,
often swapping such books with their friends' poorly-written,
poorly-edited books. Most people just aren't that particular.
They're reading to be entertained, enlightened, and inspired.
The Internet is changing the face of publishing, rest assured.
Doubtless form is important. But content earns the gold medal.
If it's printed or PDF'd from Word in Times Roman, who cares?
Any reputable publisher can *easily* convert and format text
into world-class leather binding for the finest bookshelves.
Meanwhile, the author's readership are content with "Times".
And the rich publishing elite are understandably fussy about
what they publish, and why not? It's like a restaurant which
posts a sign "we reserve the right to refuse service to any-
one" etc. You'll publish just what you want to publish, and
I'll publish just what I want to publish. Only time will tell
whose books are timeless, and whose books time disintegrates.
Enjoy,
Daniel Joseph Min
http://www.geocities.com/daniel_joseph_min
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBQZmrkZljD7YrHM/nEQKyogCfUHNZaXWk14XEvYl8sKidw8FHK3oAnAsm
catZ/d8UWVCLO8TVnSZYO8e7
=57DJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
B Perring
hand is something of a bitter pill to swallow, since, having spent two months
laying out 543 pages in Times, I am now pretty well convinced that I should
change it.
One of Times good points, to my mind at least, is that 10.5/12 its extra height
gives it the appearance of being half a point larger than Garamond set at the
same size, but without taking up any more page space.
On the downside, Times does have a slightly ungainly question mark, and the
more I study Times against a font like Minion, I can really start to appreciate
the comment that Times greater contrast between thick and thin strokes is
harder on the eye - marginally, perhaps, but it is.
So, what are the thoughts on Minion? It seems easy to read, is softer on the
eye - and would appear to be slightly smaller, not only vertically, but also
horizontally. This could possibly be a huge bonus as it might save me the odd
page here and there and bring the number of pages to below the magic 540. Or
is Minion another 'font to be avoided'?
On the other issues raised, I agree, to a point, with Daniel, that it probably
doesn't matter a tinker's cuss to the average reader which font is used, as
long as the book is interesting. I would add 'and well written', but even badly
written work can be forgiven if the yarn is ripping enough - I can think of one
particular American crime writer whose style makes me want to climb the wall,
but there is no denying that he can, at least on occasion, make the story so
compelling that I can forgive, if not entirely forget, the short-comings.
However, I can't agree with any philosophy that promotes doing less than you
can to present your work in the best possible manner, and if that takes a
little longer, so be it.
In fact, although it will undoubtedly take longer, I would certainly recommend
laying out your own work. I never realised until I embarked on this project how
seeing it in page format gives you a whole new slant - no matter how many times
it might have been edited in Word, or whatever. Having to find ways around the
'widows and orphans', and trying to prevent words from being hyphenated makes
you put every sentence under the microscope in a search for the superfluous.
It's probably always going to be a trade off - design versus content - but to
my mind the hierarchy should always be - Story; Writing Style; Artistic Design
- in that order of importance. But if I can eventually get all three right,
then I shall be a happy bunny indeed. :)
Stella Abzug
This may well be your point of view ... and you're welcome to it.
However, the marketplace actually makes judgements that run counter to
your thoughts. While there are a few notable exceptions, most of the
time a successful book is reasonably well put together, with a
"workmanlike" design and relatively acceptable level of editing.
(Notwithstanding the generally lower quality levels produced by the
large publishers over time.)
Good design won't sell a truly bad book. But a bad design truly can hurt
the sales of your good book. Readers will appreciate and benefit more
from a well edited book than they will from a poorly edited work.
1. The truism is that "people do judge a book by its cover."
2. Poor typography hurts reading comprehension. This is proven countless
times. NASA has done studies (mostly with reading flight instruments)
that prove that poor typography is actually a life threatening situation
when it involves airliner instruments.
3. The most comprehensive report of typographical studies is contained
in the book, Type and Layout by Colin Wheildon. First published in 1984,
my copy is published in March 1995 by Strathmore Press, Berkeley, CA. If
it hasn't been re-published, it may be out of print, now. Look for used
copies through Amazon marketplace or from Abes Books.
Weildon's book reports his 30+ years of experience with typography and
carefully controlled comprehension tests. (Note that these aren't merely
opinion tests of 'what looks best' but are actually based on the
comprehension of the readers determined by testing them on the content
of the test passages.)
For example, one of the many myths of typography is that italic type is
harder to read (comprehend) than roman type. However, here are the
results reported from Weildon's book, using Corona light and Corona
light italic set 8/9 points:
Comprehension level good fair poor
Corona Roman 67% 19% 14%
Corona italic 65% 19% 16%
So, this shows that there isn't much statistical difference in the
reading comprehension level between the roman and italic of this
particular typeface. Assuming that most other typefaces' roman/italic
are typical of the letterform differences of Corona, you can safely
extend this conclusion to infer a similar result with most roman/italic
combinations.
So, if you want to have a well researched discussion of the many
variables of typography and its recorded impact on reading
comprehension, I suggest you get a copy of Weildon's Type & Layout. Then
you can find out if your opinions are based on reality or on your own
perceptions and prejudices.
John Culleton
> Doubtless form is important. But content earns the gold medal.
> If it's printed or PDF'd from Word in Times Roman, who cares?
> Any reputable publisher can *easily* convert and format text
> into world-class leather binding for the finest bookshelves.
> Meanwhile, the author's readership are content with "Times".
>
I take a more pragmatic view. If it looks like the author hasn't a
clue
then the gatekeepers---the reviewers, distributors, acquisition
librarians---
will turn thumbs down. The cover is important, the interior is
important, the editing is important, the blurbs are important, all
these things are important. The idea is to avoid giving anyone along
the food chain an easy excuse for throwing the book on the discard
pile. Your book in effect is going on a job interview. It should wear
a nice suit, well pressed.
Just my 2 cents.
John Culleton
Daniel Joseph Min
><snip>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
It would appear that B Perring was right, and "there is a
kind of 'font snobbery' at work here", end quote. Anybody
can spend a lifetime studying typography if he or she is
so inclined. Every author out there can publish their work
on the Internet for free, and advertise it as they see fit
in the search engines, again, for free. The 21st century is
a whole new ballgame for publishers and everybody knows it.
E-publishing offers many distinct advantages over the old-
fashioned method of submitting to hundreds of publishers
over whom the author has no control. There have been many
super-talented authors, artists, musicians, etc. who were
turned down hundreds of times before getting their "break".
Thanks to the Internet and a plethora of freeware programs
available to build websites, print-to-PDF, etc., any as yet
unpublished author can put their work on-line, and charge
a modest fee for their goods and services as they see fit.
No ISBN is needed, neither is a copyright, because now you
can digitally-sign every page of your material and post it
onto the Google archives, where they'll remain intact for
many decades to come, even if Google goes the way of Deja
News, and sells the ever-burgeoning usenet archives to
another company. That's what I did with seven of my own
original books and counting... all for free! Plain text
works fine, and formatting in Word with Times New Roman
(like that forged Texas Air Nat'l Guard Rathergate memo)
or whatever typeface and page layout the author prefers,
then simply printing them out in the popular PDF e-book
format and uploading them to a simple webpage; then the
author can use free on-line meta-submission websites to
get their work noticed--provided it's unique enough and
will immediately appear near the top of the first page
of the search results. And the independent e-publisher
should blog their books in addition to other promotion
tactics. My view is if it isn't free, then I have no use
for it, myself not being filthy rich like the font-snobs.
So I happily leave you font-snobs to the annals of history.
The days of censorship are GONE. Any author can write and
e-publish their work easily. And for just a few pennies per
day, the e-publisher can get their books promoted by more
professional e-book promoters through their websites. Then,
if you want your book in print, you can buy your ISBN and
use low-cost print-on-demand services. If the book sells
enough copies, then maybe a font-snob publisher will make
you an offer. But I wouldn't do business with a font-snob,
and I'm confident no font-snob would do business with me.
I'm just too independent and *uncensorable*. And so I AM.
Daniel Joseph Min
http://www.geocities.com/daniel_joseph_min
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBQZpkE5ljD7YrHM/nEQLgswCgxdxQuAIV7BopERozx6yn0JTJ44AAn1zN
ImdCcPTHqvZNorZANMD4+opp
=PNtJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Daniel Joseph Min
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
It also helps to duplex your pages 2-up on landscaped
letter or legal size paper and setting your margins to
mirror. Then, open a few new books and notice how the
page headers are formatted by page number, chapter,
and book title at opposition. It's easy to do, and
will help your book look and read more like a book.
Then use heavy cardstock for the book cover front
and back. Comb binding, spiral, glue, whatever is
your preference, you can buy the equipment needed
fairly cheaply at any major office supply store.
Good luck,
Daniel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBQZpm8pljD7YrHM/nEQI2hQCdEC+Q2jbnK+xb6Nc+3RgTUq5CoHYAn1cD
gdTapmPM4WXv6T+I+g6pTvJb
=ZqNo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paul Ferguson
wrote:
>1. Times Roman was designed for use in a Newspaper. It was intended for
>narrow columns.
>
>2. Times Roman was designed for letter press printing. Both the dot gain
>and pressure of the type into the paper would make the print fuller than
>the appearance derived from offset printing or laser printing on better
>quality papers. The result is that Times has rather fine strokes and
>more thick/thin contrast today than was intended when the typeface was
>first designed. This hurts readability.
>
>3. Because Times is the default for most word processing programs it is
>over used. Readers appreciate some variety. Times, due to its overuse is
>visually boring. A typeface for a book should be selected with the
>actual content in mind. A business book should have a business-like
>typeface. A romance novel might have something a little more lyrical
>(such as one of the Garamond typefaces).
> Another overused font, Helvetica, also suffers from being (more or
>less) the "official" font of the Federal Government. Most IRS forms and
>instructions are set in Helvetica. Now, think of the connection to your
>project -- do you really want to remind folks of the IRS, as you would
>if you used Helvetica?
> Times shows up on annoying letters from insurance companies (your
>claim has been denied) and on many other mundane documents of life.
>Using Times, you give up the emotional boost that a better selection
>might give to your project.
I am looking for font recommendations for a 6'" x 9" canoeing and
kayaking guidebook. Line width will be about 4.25".
Can you give me a couple of serif and non-serif fonts that you would
consider choosing from for a guidebook?
PaulF
Stella Abzug
Paul Ferguson <Pa...@PaulFerguson.us> wrote:
<snip>
>
> I am looking for font recommendations for a 6'" x 9" canoeing and
> kayaking guidebook. Line width will be about 4.25".
>
> Can you give me a couple of serif and non-serif fonts that you would
> consider choosing from for a guidebook?
>
> PaulF
Some good book typefaces are:
Baskerville
Bembo
Californian or Berkeley
Caslon
Century
Garamond (not ITC Garamond-- Adobe Garamond is best)
Cheltenham
Jenson
Goudy Old Style
Minion
New Century Schoolbook
Palatino
Sabon
Stone Serif
For a canoeing/kayaking guidebook I would lean toward Stone Serif,
Minion, or even Stone Informal (a more 'friendly' variant of Stone
Serif).
Some good sans serif typefaces for heads etc.
Franklin Gothic
Gill Sans
Antique Olive
Syntax
Officina Sans
Frutiger
Optima
Stone Sans
Myriad
For your project, if you use Stone Serif or Informal, then Stone Sans
will work best as it has the same design considerations and rhythms as
the serif font.
Minion works extremely well with Frutiger and Myriad
You might want to set a few paragraphs with each of the fonts (and
others as well) to get a feel for how they look with your material --
then make a selection.
In general, it's best to stick with "old style" faces for the body text.
These are the ones that we are most used to seeing for text and they are
usually the easiest to read.
Paul Ferguson
wrote:
>For a canoeing/kayaking guidebook I would lean toward Stone Serif,
>Minion, or even Stone Informal (a more 'friendly' variant of Stone
>Serif).
Stella,
Thank you very much for your recommendation. I have followed this
forum for a few years and noticed that you have contributed much
experience and wisdom to it.
PaulF
Stella Abzug
Paul Ferguson <Pa...@PaulFerguson.us> wrote:
Paul,
Thanks for the kind words...
David H Li
in my system is dated July). Gaining access through Google allows me to read only, not to post. Somehow,
through another ISP, I have finally been allowed to read and to post -- after an absence of quite a while.
And this is the first thread that comes to my attention.
First, let me say that I enjoy John Culleton's messages. Being a professional in book design and book
reviews, we, at least I, can learn a great deal from his advices. And his willingness to share his expertise
in this newsgroup is to be commended.
A point in one of his posts caught my attenion, when he said that a line comfortable to the eye has about 65
lower case characters. Immediately upon reading it, I turned to one of the books I have self-published (I
have self-published over a dozen books, over a period of 11 years) and counted some sample lines. (My books,
after the initial disaster, are all 6"x9"; each page has a 1" border to the left and right, leaving 4" for
text.) There are invariably 65 characters, plus or minus 2. For example, one line (which begins on a
preceding line and ends on the following line, thus it does not have a capital letter nor a period) has 10
words plus a comma -- the total count for characters is 56; add 1 for comma and 9 for spaces between these 10
words, the total becomes 66.
Responding to John's challenge on "what is good in Times Roman?", I wish to offer the following for
discussion -- all my selff-published books are set in Times Roman.
Without question, Times Roman is a workhorse, functional but without distinguishing character. To me, the
key question to answer before making a selection is whether a book uses only one font (not including the
chapter heading, etc). This may be so if a book is a novel and, occasionally, a non-fiction. When so, to
break the monotony, font style may be a good device. A book whose font style left a strong impression on me
is a biography of an architect, I. M. Pei (the book was given me as a holiday gift, Pei being a graduate from
a university in China from which I also earned a baccalaureate degree, though many years later). Taking into
account the subject matter, the book designer treated it as an art treatise, with a beautiful font and design
to match. The font (I cannot recall the name off hand) is pleasant, elegant, but non-obstrusive. One needs
this mainly because, throughout the book, only one font is used (not counting the chapter heading).
Where a book makes use of more than one font (say, with Helvetica for subheadings, etc, in a non-fiction
book), the very fact that more than one font is used reduces the burden on the first font -- their contrast
breaks the monotony.
All of my self-published books are non-fiction. With one exception, all are either bilingual (English and
Chinese) or all supported by chess diagrams or Mah-jong fonts. Thus, not only are there two fonts (Times
Roman and Helvetica); each of these books uses, technically speaking, three fonts. There is no feeling of
being monotonous.
The only book in which I have but a few illustrations is one, of all subjects, on self-publishing
(All-by-yourself Self-publishing). I use Times Roman for text throughout, and use Helvetica Narrow in bold
for headings and subheadings. To break the monotony, each page has at least one heading or subheading (a
feature probably unavailable when one is doing a novel).
In defense of Times Roman, I might cite several reasons. One, it has a rich family of fonts -- if one adds
italics and bold, if one introduces this font in a couple of sizes (which I use either in footnotes or, in my
All-by-yourself Self-publishing, as examples of points made in the text), one is unlikely to be bored by the
utilitarian impression this font imparts. Indeed, I do not want the font's features to distract the message I
am sending.
That Time Roman is tightly set is, in my view, an advantage. I would rather leave wider margins than use
fonts that, character for character, use more space. As a side remark, I find books with narrow margin to be
a sign of its amateurishness.
On this point, I would not consider using Times Roman, ipso facto, as an indication of the publisher's
amateurishness (as opposed to his/her amateur status, of which a self-publisher must necessarily be so). I
am surprised to read that MSWord uses Times Roman as the default font. While I do not use MSWord (I prefer
WordPerfect for composing, and PageMaker for pagemaking), I must say that, while I have experimented with
several other fonts mentioned by several other posts (Palatino and Bookman, for example), I have returned to
Times Roman for the reasons cited.
Finally, the number of characters per line is a function of the line length as well as the font size. Thus,
when I use a smaller font size of Time Roman for explanation in my book on self-publishing, the line is
shorter (again, to accommodate the eye). Before doing my self-publishing, I read widely, and learned that,
from a physiological standpoint, one's ability to keep one's eye on the same line (that is, without wandering
off to the next line or to the previous line) is an interplay of the font size, the line length, and the
blank space between lines. A font is not to be blamed if a line is too long or the lead between lines too
little.
David Li
author of All-by-yourself Self-publishing
Stella Abzug
David H Li <dav...@erols.com> wrote:
<snip>
> A point in one of his posts caught my attenion, when he said that a line
> comfortable to the eye has about 65
> lower case characters. Immediately upon reading it, I turned to one of the
> books I have self-published (I
> have self-published over a dozen books, over a period of 11 years) and
> counted some sample lines. (My books,
> after the initial disaster, are all 6"x9"; each page has a 1" border to the
> left and right, leaving 4" for
> text.) There are invariably 65 characters, plus or minus 2. <snip>
First, let's understand exactly what typography is. In his book,
Typography, Ruari McLean defines typography as, " The art of designing
communication by means of the printed word." If you really want to
understand typography (and book design) you really need to study the
history of printing. I can suggest A Short History of the Printed Word
by Warren Chappell.
Your first amateur mistake is to use Times as a book typeface (despite
your defense of it). If you're getting 65 or so characters per 4 inch
line, you're probably using 12 point type --- which is a bit on the
large size for most readers. (It does look "better" on a computer
screen, however.)
The next error is that your margins are the same left and right. If you
look at the classic books (which are a model for modern typography),
you'll note that the gutter between the two text blocks appears to be
about the same width as the outside page margins. So, if you set the
outside and gutter margin the same, you'll end up (after allowing for
the space lost inside the gutter) with a spacing that's about 1-1/2 the
width of the outside margins. It would be better to use a margin setting
of 3/4 for the inside margin and 1 inch for the outside margin.
While experts do have varying opinions on margins, the generalization is
that margins should be generous rather than slender, that they should
not all be equal in size, and that a progression in margin size, from
widest at the bottom, to outside, top and narrowest on the inside
(gutter) is desirable. (Most word processing programs default to a wide
margin in the gutter because they have allowed for mechanical binding,
such as a 3-hole binder or some kind of folder with staples or other
fasteners. With that kind of binding method, a much greater inside
margin is required to allow for the loss in the gutter. The typical
perfect bound book has a much smaller binding area loss.
I generally use margins of .75 inside, .875 outside, .835 top, and
approximately 1 inch for the bottom-- these measurements arrived at by
experimentation and years of experience. Other techniques use 6, 5, 4,
and 3 picas (but I think the gutter margins is a little too narrow with
this method), and there are elaborate methods, used in earlier times,
where diagonals are drawn on the page and on the spread to locate the
corners of the text block. These historic methods generally give much
too generous margins for modern economics to support.
> Responding to John's challenge on "what is good in Times Roman?", I wish to
> offer the following for
> discussion -- all my selff-published books are set in Times Roman.
>
<snip>
Compare Times and Minion. Minion is not at all exceptional in
appearance, but is much more pleasant to read than is Times. If you
measure the typeface, point size for point size, Minion and Times both
set at about the same width ... but Minion doesn't appear to be as
"narrow looking" as times. (I'll leave it to you to figure out exactly
how that's done.) I have set quite a few books in Minion --- it's quite
business-like. Not particularly fancy -- yet in the latest Adobe
OpenType pro version has full sets of lining numbers, old style numbers,
true small caps and even swash italic caps --- along with a number of
unusual ligatures (if you want to use them for a 'fancy' text).
> A book whose font style
> left a strong impression on me
> is a biography of an architect, I. M. Pei <snip> Taking into
> account the subject matter, the book designer treated it as an art treatise,
> with a beautiful font and design
> to match. The font (I cannot recall the name off hand) is pleasant, elegant,
> but non-obstrusive. <snip>
Odds are the font used was one of the Garamond variants. When I was a
judge for a book design competition a short time back, I noticed that
all the 'artsy' books used Garamond. (While Garamond is a lovely and
elegant typeface, there is a tendency for many graphic artists to think
"artsy" and then use Garamond.
Interesting fact about Garamond ... it sets even tighter than Times (at
the same point sizes) ... but doesn't appear narrow as does Times. In
this case it's a matter that Garamond (other than ITC Garamond) has a
small x-height for the lower case letters. When typefaces with smaller
x-heights are used, you can set them at a larger point size quite
effectively--- and still have relatively good efficiency.
> Where a book makes use of more than one font (say, with Helvetica for
> subheadings, etc, in a non-fiction
> book), the very fact that more than one font is used reduces the burden on
> the first font -- their contrast
> breaks the monotony.
>
I contend that using Helvetica does not break any monotony. It's heavily
overused and is boring in its own right. There are some great
alternatives: Frutiger, Myriad, Syntax, and the quirky Gill Sans -- to
name just a few.
> All of my self-published books are non-fiction. With one exception, all are
> either bilingual (English and
> Chinese) or all supported by chess diagrams or Mah-jong fonts. Thus, not
> only are there two fonts (Times
> Roman and Helvetica); each of these books uses, technically speaking, three
> fonts. There is no feeling of
> being monotonous.
Picture fonts that represent chess or other game pieces aren't usually
considered "fonts" from the standpoint of the "typesetting rules" that
suggest using no more than 2 font families.
Of course, any book with graphic elements will seem more lively than a
book of straight text.
>
> The only book in which I have but a few illustrations is one, of all
> subjects, on self-publishing
> (All-by-yourself Self-publishing). I use Times Roman for text throughout,
> and use Helvetica Narrow in bold
> for headings and subheadings. To break the monotony, each page has at least
> one heading or subheading (a
> feature probably unavailable when one is doing a novel).
I shudder at the thought.
>
> In defense of Times Roman, I might cite several reasons. One, it has a rich
> family of fonts -- if one adds
> italics and bold, if one introduces this font in a couple of sizes (which I
> use either in footnotes or, in my
Nearly all fonts are available in roman, italic, bold, and bold-italic
variants. This is not really a rich family. A truly rich family will
have true small caps, lining and old style numbers (probably in both
tabular and proportional variations), alternate characters (for special
circumstances), Swash or Swash italic, and a set of decorative elements
that can be used to separate blocks of text instead of the typical three
asterisks, centered in the line.
> That Time Roman is tightly set is, in my view, an advantage. I would rather
> leave wider margins than use
> fonts that, character for character, use more space. As a side remark, I
> find books with narrow margin to be
> a sign of its amateurishness.
>
Ah, but by your very use of Times Roman, you show your lack of really
understanding typography.
In and of themselves, fonts are neither "good" nor "bad." They are,
however, "appropriate" and "inappropriate." Times is simply
inappropriate for use in typesetting books. Unfortunately, Attorney
General Ashcroft isn't likely to come knocking if you use Times, however.
> On this point, I would not consider using Times Roman, ipso facto, as an
> indication of the publisher's
> amateurishness (as opposed to his/her amateur status, of which a
> self-publisher must necessarily be so). I
> am surprised to read that MSWord uses Times Roman as the default font. While
> I do not use MSWord (I prefer
> WordPerfect for composing, and PageMaker for pagemaking), I must say that,
> while I have experimented with
> several other fonts mentioned by several other posts (Palatino and Bookman,
> for example), I have returned to
> Times Roman for the reasons cited.
Ah, but it _is_ an indication of a publisher's amateurishness. Someone
who has made the effort to read the standard typepography books and
researched the history of the various fonts would quickly determine that
Times was designed for newspaper use and is not a particularly useful
font for books.
Bookman is a decent choice ... although I personally find it rather
dark. Palatino -- a wonderful typeface that was revived from near
oblivion by the accident of being selected as one of the base set of
fonts provided with all PostScript printers -- is considered a "good"
book font. I especially like the script-like flourishes in some of the
letters. I'm less attracted to the wide and awkward looking uppercase
"W". -- but I've used it in a few books.
My personal favorites are Berkeley Old Style, Minion, and Goudy Old
Style. But I've used many dozen fonts -- selecting each one based on the
content and on my client's preferences. I've typeset or supervised the
production of well over 1,000 books in the past 18 years. I've done work
for HarperCollins, McGraw-Hill, Addison-Wesley, Univ. of California
Press, Univ. of Washington Press, 10 Speed Press, Celestial Arts, and
NASA along with self-publishers almost too numerous to count. Many of my
books have won awards including Publishers Marketing Association
Benjamin Franklin awards and January Magazine (a literary magazine)
names a book I designed as one of the "10 Best" of the year 2000.
Several books I worked on (for the larger publishers) were on the
NYTimes best seller list ... including Co-Dependent No More.
I also observe that none of these books used Times.
>
> Finally, the number of characters per line is a function of the line length
> as well as the font size. Thus,
> when I use a smaller font size of Time Roman for explanation in my book on
> self-publishing, the line is
> shorter (again, to accommodate the eye). Before doing my self-publishing, I
> read widely, and learned that,
> from a physiological standpoint, one's ability to keep one's eye on the same
> line (that is, without wandering
> off to the next line or to the previous line) is an interplay of the font
> size, the line length, and the
> blank space between lines. A font is not to be blamed if a line is too long
> or the lead between lines too
> little.
This is entirely correct. If the line is longer than the "magic" 65-70
characters, then you start adding leading between the lines. Somewhere
beyond 80-85 characters per line, you really should consider a different
typeface or a shorter line -- or break the text block into 2 columns.
While the conventional advice is to add 2 points of leading to the point
size of the type (e.g. 10/12, 11/13, 12/14), when the lines start
getting longer, then you need to start adding additional space until the
spacing 'feels' right by reading printed copy (not on screen).
> author of All-by-yourself Self-publishing
>
David H Li
> First, let's understand exactly what typography is. In his book,
> Typography, Ruari McLean defines typography as, " The art of designing
> communication by means of the printed word." If you really want to
> understand typography (and book design) you really need to study the
> history of printing. I can suggest A Short History of the Printed Word
> by Warren Chappell.
I think we do not have a meeting of the minds from the very beginning. Perhaps you
are talking about typography from a design point of view; I never used the word
"typography" in my post nor am I interested in the design of type faces. What I am
interested in, as a reader and as a publisher, is to select a type face that best
conveys the messages I wish to read as a reader or I wish my readers to read as a
publisher.
Regardless, the definition quoted is pretentious. "Designing communication" -- what
does that mean? In fact, the entire sentence describes what a writer does -- "the
art of communicating by means of the written word" -- rather than what a type
designer does.
An analogy might be a car -- you seem to focus on designing a car, which is
certainly important, but I am interested in using a car to meet my needs. As a
workhorse, I do not need a fancy car; I am only interested in using the car to get
me to where I want to go or what I want it to do. A fancy car is more trouble than
it is worth in that capacity (e.g., hauling rubbish to the junk yard.) On
occasion, if the purpose is to impress, I might be inclined to drive a fancy car;
here, the appearance of the car is as important as its function: in transporting
its passengers. Even so, what is expected is your station in life. Last week,
around 6 pm, I was on a bus which passed through the left edge of the White House;
there was a traffic jam; all vehicles stopped. One reason is that on the lane
closer to the White House were car after car, each with a D license tag (for
diplomat), a 2-letter prefix (indicating a specific foreign country), and the
number 001 (meaning that it is a car for that country's ambassador), all trying to
enter the backside of the White House. Each car is a black Lincoln sedan -- the
functional car for an ambassador -- no Mercedes, no Bentley, no Rolls Royce or
other fancy foreign cars. To my way of thinking, that is the functional equivalent
of Times Roman
Times Roman is functional, utilitarian, and unobstrusive -- a reader need not pay
attention to its design but simply directs his/her attention to the message being
conveyed. And that is what a non-fiction font should serve. Let me cite an
example. A couple of months ago, at the Library of Congress, I picked up a booklet
on a lecture by Henry Kissenger (he donated some money for a lecturing fund and he
gave its inaugural lecture). The lecture was on an important subject (on US
relations with the rest of the world), and the font is a fancy one where some
combination characters (e.g., f and l) are specially designed with artificial
decoration. Though fancy, to me, it was distracting -- I wandered and sought to
find out what other character combinations had this treatment (and there are quite
a few; apparently the type face used is one designed by InDesign that is highly
touted); in the end, I simply tossed the booklet aside as I could not concentrate
and pay enough attention to its message. (On the other hand, in Newsweek last week
or so, there was a special "report" by Kissenger, probably 6 or 8 pages in length
(and set, most likely, in Times Roman), on a similar topic. I had no trouble
reading it through and, in fact, retained enough to ask a speaker a week or so
later, a former Adviser on Asian Affairs to Clinton, citing Kissinger in this
"report". So, it cannot be the subject matter that repelled me in the first
instance.)
Today, I was at the LC reading a book on Confucius ("Manufacturing Confucianism"),
based on a doctoral dissertation written at UC Berkeley and published by Duke
University Press. This is perhaps the second or third time I read the book --
earlier, I felt that I could not grasp what the author was saying. Today, after
about 15 minutes, I found myself wandering. Thinking about the message I posted
yesterday, I decided to look at the type face used. The type was set
professionally (with the typesetting firm's name prominently mentioned in the verso
page), and the type used is Trump Mediaeval, a font presumably to reflect the BCE
time period represented by Confucius. My own impression is that the type face is
pretentious -- it tends to crowd out the message being sent by the author. (One
reason I was reading this volume again is that, in another newsgroup related to
Confucianism, two people were arguing, back and forth, what this author's views
are. Both are different from mine; reading the volume again did not change my
earlier understanding of this author's points.)
I then looked at the page design -- in my view, the margin is too narrow: 3/4" for
the outside margin and 5/8" for the inside margin, allowing 4-1/2" for text. I
counted a sample line (difficult for this book, since there are capitalized words
on practically every line), 12 words, 57 characters, 2 commas, 1 paren, 1 period,
11 spaces between words, for a total line count of 72 lower-case characters.
Perhaps too long?
> Your first amateur mistake is to use Times as a book typeface (despite
> your defense of it).
Type face is merely an agent -- I do not want the type face to crowd out the
message I am trying to convey as an author (and, of course, as a self-publisher).
I want the reader to focus on the message. The more familiar the type face, the
less attention a reader is likey to pay to it -- and that is exactly what I want a
type face to accomplish. I also want a wider margin, so as to allow space for
marginal notes.
> If you're getting 65 or so characters per 4 inch
> line, you're probably using 12 point type --- which is a bit on the
> large size for most readers.
I think I used 11-point type -- it could even be 10.8.
> (It does look "better" on a computer
> screen, however.)
Well, eventually, a computer page has to be converted to a printed page. So what
difference does it make what it looks on a compute page. However, the type size
does count in one important aspect: the number of pages. My books on games
(western chess and Xiangqi (Chinese chess)) have an international readership;
airmail is a function of weight and volume. Too big a font size is uneconomical on
this front.
This allows me to make a point I failed to mention in my last post: hyphenation.
PageMaker allows me to decide whether I want words hyphenated by the program. I
prefer not -- if this is another sign of being "amateurish," so be it. However,
when a page is printed out and I find that a certain line is not tightly set,
invariably it is because there is a long word (8 or more characters) following that
line. I then manually hyphenate that long word to move its first half to the
preceding line to tighten up. Personally, I find a text with too many inter-line
hyphenated words to be distracting; indeed, I do not agree with word breaks in many
automatically hyphenated words. Another reason is that I tend to use hyphen where
compound words are used adjectivally (such as "lower-case" characters in an earlier
paragraph.)
> The next error is that your margins are the same left and right. If you
> look at the classic books (which are a model for modern typography),
> you'll note that the gutter between the two text blocks appears to be
> about the same width as the outside page margins. So, if you set the
> outside and gutter margin the same, you'll end up (after allowing for
> the space lost inside the gutter) with a spacing that's about 1-1/2 the
> width of the outside margins. It would be better to use a margin setting
> of 3/4 for the inside margin and 1 inch for the outside margin.
You may be talking about hardcover books. I only do paperback -- again, the
emphasis is on a book's content, not its cover. For a big hardcover book, an
inside margin of 3/4", to me, is inadequate. I have in front of me a 552-page
hardcover book, "1421"; and I find the inside margin (approximately 3/4") too
narrow.
Realistically speaking, a page size is a matter of being accustomed to it as to
feel comfortable. Everyone is biased; everyone considers his/her choice to be the
best, and everyone else's choice to be a "mistake." As beauty is in the eye of the
beholder, so is the page design to the designer. I readily admit I am not a
professional book designer, but I know what appeals to me, and what constitutes a
good-looking page. Let me ask you (assuming you are professional book designer) a
question. Suppose you have a client, such as myself, who insists on 1" margin left
and right for a perfect-bound paperback book, and who insists that the preferred
font is Times Roman. Would you take the assignment or would you decline the
assignment on the ground that it is not your style?
> While experts do have varying opinions on margins, the generalization is
> that margins should be generous rather than slender, that they should
> not all be equal in size, and that a progression in margin size, from
> widest at the bottom, to outside, top and narrowest on the inside
> (gutter) is desirable. (Most word processing programs default to a wide
> margin in the gutter because they have allowed for mechanical binding,
> such as a 3-hole binder or some kind of folder with staples or other
> fasteners. With that kind of binding method, a much greater inside
> margin is required to allow for the loss in the gutter. The typical
> perfect bound book has a much smaller binding area loss.
As I noted earlier, I use PageMaker to set a page. I have complete control over
the margins, left and right, top and bottom. In my earlier post, I did not mention
the margin top and bottom; in my books, the bottom margin is indeed wider than the
top margin. I first read about the bottom margin needing to be wider than the top
margin in, if my memory serves me, Applebaum's book. No reason was given; so I
experimented. Since such a setup is indeed more eye-pleasing than otherwise
(again, a very subjective assessment), so I set this up accordingly. However,
because of diagrams and Chinese-language passages in most of my books, the actual
lower margin is frequently even wider.
> I generally use margins of .75 inside, .875 outside, .835 top, and
> approximately 1 inch for the bottom-- these measurements arrived at by
> experimentation and years of experience. Other techniques use 6, 5, 4,
> and 3 picas (but I think the gutter margins is a little too narrow with
> this method), and there are elaborate methods, used in earlier times,
> where diagonals are drawn on the page and on the spread to locate the
> corners of the text block. These historic methods generally give much
> too generous margins for modern economics to support.
Again, I feel that type faces and page designs are just vehicles through which
messages are being carried. My aim is that they be unobstrusive, not distracting,
pleasing but not attention-grabbing. The message -- the "communication," if you
will -- is in the text, not in the type face.
David Li
Premier Publishing
Stella Abzug
David H Li <dav...@erols.com> wrote:
_That_ is exactly what "typography" is. Book design = typography.
Typography = book design. One and the same.
Of course, I expected that you wouldn't appreciate my remarks.
> An analogy might be a car -- you seem to focus on designing a car, which is
> certainly important, but I am interested in using a car to meet my needs. As
> a
> workhorse, I do not need a fancy car; I am only interested in using the car
> to get
> me to where I want to go or what I want it to do. <snip>
There is nothing at al "fancy" in using appropriate typefaces for books.
>
> Times Roman is functional, utilitarian, and unobstrusive -- a reader need not
> pay
> attention to its design but simply directs his/her attention to the message
> being
> conveyed. And that is what a non-fiction font should serve. Let me cite an
> example. A couple of months ago, at the Library of Congress, I picked up a
> booklet
> on a lecture by Henry Kissenger (he donated some money for a lecturing fund
> and he
> gave its inaugural lecture). The lecture was on an important subject (on US
> relations with the rest of the world), and the font is a fancy one where some
> combination characters (e.g., f and l) are specially designed with artificial
> decoration. Though fancy, to me, it was distracting -- I wandered and sought
> to
> find out what other character combinations had this treatment (and there are
> quite
> a few; apparently the type face used is one designed by InDesign that is
> highly
> touted); in the end, I simply tossed the booklet aside as I could not
> concentrate
> and pay enough attention to its message.
This is precisely a situation where a "graphic artist" designed a
booklet to be pretty rather than a "typographer" having designed it to
facilitate communication. In the pre-desktop computer days, graphic
artists would "specify" type --- and typographers would set the type.
The final result was a melding of the skills of both artist and
craftsman -- and the work reflected the combination of skills.
I have designed things to be pretty (for example a book of homilies --
one per page -- intended as a gift), but far more often, I've designed
works to be read and understood.
Times is functional for typesetting newspapers. It is a poor choice for
books. You apparently don't happen to agree or perhaps you don't
understand that.
I suggest you take a look at Minion and compare it letter for letter
with Times. Then set a few passages (with the same specifications other
than the font) in each typeface (Times and Minion) and compare them.
Hand them to a few people and ask them read them. If you want to do this
as a proper test, select a sample of people and give them passages in
each typeface ... then give them a test of comprehension... you'll
probably find that Times, when set in book width columns, generates less
reading comprehension than Minion (or probably Bembo, Berkeley O.S., and
Goudy O.S.).
(On the other hand, in Newsweek last
> week
> or so, there was a special "report" by Kissenger, probably 6 or 8 pages in
> length
> (and set, most likely, in Times Roman), on a similar topic. I had no trouble
> reading it through and, in fact, retained enough to ask a speaker a week or
> so
> later, a former Adviser on Asian Affairs to Clinton, citing Kissinger in this
> "report". So, it cannot be the subject matter that repelled me in the first
> instance.)
>
Actually Newsweek, if it uses times, is probably an appropriate place
for it, as Newsweek's columns are fairly narrow compared to a typical
trade book. However, I doubt that they are using times. (Frankly, I
haven't seen a copy of Newsweek in some time so I can't say for sure
what typeface they use. Forbes, however, sets their magazine with
Galliard --- yet another typeface that would work fairly well in books.
> Today, I was at the LC reading a book on Confucius ("Manufacturing
> Confucianism"),
> based on a doctoral dissertation written at UC Berkeley and published by Duke
> University Press. This is perhaps the second or third time I read the book
> --
> earlier, I felt that I could not grasp what the author was saying. Today,
> after
> about 15 minutes, I found myself wandering. Thinking about the message I
> posted
> yesterday, I decided to look at the type face used. The type was set
> professionally (with the typesetting firm's name prominently mentioned in the
> verso
> page), and the type used is Trump Mediaeval, a font presumably to reflect the
> BCE
> time period represented by Confucius. My own impression is that the type
> face is
> pretentious -- it tends to crowd out the message being sent by the author.
<snip>
> I then looked at the page design -- in my view, the margin is too narrow:
> 3/4" for
> the outside margin and 5/8" for the inside margin, allowing 4-1/2" for text.
> I
> counted a sample line (difficult for this book, since there are capitalized
> words
> on practically every line), 12 words, 57 characters, 2 commas, 1 paren, 1
> period,
> 11 spaces between words, for a total line count of 72 lower-case characters.
> Perhaps too long?
Perhaps it was a bit long although more leading can be used to
compensate -- e.g. if the type was 11 points, then the lines could have
been set on 14 points leading to compensate for the length. I would
agree that the margins are less generous than I would propose. Trump
Mediaeval is actually a "transitional" typeface -- it has features of
the old style typefaces (which are generally those preferred for books)
and features of the Modern typefaces (Modern gained the name when they
were designed in the 1820 -- they were "modern" at _that_ time. The most
typical Modern typeface is Bodoni -- a designer's favorite (but not a
typographer's favorite). The California State Auto Association magazine,
"VIA" sets some of their text in the beginning sections in Bodoni ...
they use vary narrow columns (4 per page) --- and they are practically
unreadable. But it very 'chi chi' design-wise.
However, after a quick look at the Trum Mediaeval in my font collection,
I doubt that it would be my first choice for a book.
>
> > Your first amateur mistake is to use Times as a book typeface (despite
> > your defense of it).
>
> Type face is merely an agent -- I do not want the type face to crowd out the
> message I am trying to convey as an author (and, of course, as a
> self-publisher).
> I want the reader to focus on the message. The more familiar the type face,
> the
> less attention a reader is likey to pay to it -- and that is exactly what I
> want a
> type face to accomplish. I also want a wider margin, so as to allow space
> for
> marginal notes.
>
> > If you're getting 65 or so characters per 4 inch
> > line, you're probably using 12 point type --- which is a bit on the
> > large size for most readers.
>
> I think I used 11-point type -- it could even be 10.8.
>
> > (It does look "better" on a computer
> > screen, however.)
>
> Well, eventually, a computer page has to be converted to a printed page. So
> what
> difference does it make what it looks on a compute page.
I only mention that as it's a common error by the less informed. I've
seen many books that were designed to be easy to read while being
typeset... completely failing when printed.
The "algorithm" method of hyphenation tends to make too many errors for
my taste as well. However, the dictionary method usually does a better
job. I've completely moved over to InDesign --- which has far superior
letter and word spacing skills -- and it generates much better line
breaks than PageMaker. When I was using PM, I would frequently intervene
with my own hyphenation rather than accept the program's choices.
B Perring
anit-Times lobby, as far as books are concerned.
I don't think it's a crime to use Times,but there are indeed better fonts. The
more you look and compare, the more you notice it - it's a matter of 'tuning in
your eye'.
OK, the difference might be very small, but if one font is just fractionally
easier to read than another, then surely it makes sense to use it.
I, for one, am really glad I happened upon this discussion.
Regards
The Happy Convert :)