Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.

Games and Gaming: [Book Design] Typography: Justified text vs. Align Left

Bottom of Page

1 to 49 of 49

  1.  
    •  
      CommentAuthorrrr23
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2006
     # 1
    Hello all. I know that some people out there are pretty damn good at the whole page layout / design / graphics thing and was wondering if some one could give me some thoughts or background on the whole text alignment issue.

    I'm wondering what the design implications are between using standard left-aligned text on the page or fully justified text. Obviously I am aware of what the basic differences between the two are (left aligned gives an uneven margin on the right with even gaps between words, justified leaves a flat margin on the right with uneven gaps beween words) My problem is that I'm essentially someone who roughly knows how to use design software but lacks the aesthetic knowhow to analyse the results or implications of the various choices. (I work in IT support, primarily for design companies and colleges. I've got copies of most design software: quark, indesign, macromedia studio etc, and through playing have learnt to "use" them, but haven't ever studied design as such. Sadly everyone else in my department is the same, so I don't think they would be able to help!)

    If I layed out a game with the text justified what are the design implications or results of that as opposed to the text left-aligned? What about the other way round? Is one more readable than the other? Does one allow better use of space? Is one thought to be more visually pleasing?

    Any thoughts or comments appreciated.

    Cheers

    Drew
    • CommentAuthorkruug
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2006
     # 2
    If you're interested in typography, check out Robert Bringhurst's "Elements of Typographic Style". It's solid gold, seriously.

    Most books are set justified. It looks better, because the page appears more solid and even-colored.
    However, if your page has narrow columns (like newspaper columns), ragged right (what you called standard left-aligned) might be better, since it prevents weird gaps between words. I doubt your book would use narrow columns, though, so I recommend justified text.

    One thing to watch out for is excessive hyphenation. In InDesign, you can turn hyphenation off (not a great idea), or set parameters to control it. You can set it to limit only two successive hyphenated lines, which is good. Three or more hyphenated lines in a row is a Bad Thing.
  3.  # 3
    It will depend on a few different things, including your font (and how well it's made*), the size of your text, and the width of your columns. You want to avoid seeing rivers of whitespace that run vertically through your text.

    In addition to font, size, column width and justification, seriously give thought to these other two points: line-spacing and padding / whitespace around your text. Increasing your line-spacing to 120% to 150% and increasing the space betwen the edge of your text and the edge of the page / other elements / other text are the two easiest ways to increase the visual appeal of a lot of documents.

    Trial and error, and looking at other books to how they did it is the best way to learn. :)

    * Be cautious about non-professional fonts for body text. The kerning (spacing between letters) can be rubbish, making them okay for titles, but poor for body text.
    • CommentAuthorkruug
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2006
     # 4
    Indeed. If you can afford Adobe Caslon Pro, go for it. It won't let you down.
    Whatever you do, don't use Papyrus. Ever.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMatt
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2006
     # 5
    One interesting issue with justified text. People with dyslexia (and other mild cognitive disabilities) generally find it much harder to read because of irregular spaces between the words.
    •  
      CommentAuthorross
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2006
     # 6
    Some people are bothered by e.e. cummings use of lowercase, some are bothered by justified text. I find justified text harder to read. I am neither differently abled nor lysdexic -- I am just a jackass.
  7.  # 7
    Kruug's recommendation is very, very good. Here, I'll facilitate.

    And any Papyrus inclinations you have will be better satisfied by Herculaneum.

    After GenCon (because that's when I'll have time) I'll be starting a forum about book design for game designers. You'll be able to keep posted by checking Monkey Do, Monkey see.
  8.  # 8
    Joshua A. C. Newman, I await that forum with pleasure. I just discovered the 1922 Manual of Linotype Typography in our research library and it has been killing my brain with excitement.
    •  
      CommentAuthorrrr23
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2006 edited
     # 9
    Thanks for this folks!

    I'll have to have a look at that Elements of Typographic Style book. I'm sure I've heard it mentioned before, we may even have a copy somewhere actually.

    Joshua, I'd definitely be interested in that forum too.

    And kruug, thanks for the recommendation of Caslon, it's good to know what a decent font actually is. I would have no idea to be honest. My typographic knowledge: I've heard one or two designy types wax lyrical about Helvetica, and I've been recommended to use a serif font for the main text, but apart from that I wouldn't have a clue what font to use beyond what just looked nice to me. And that might not be very readable.

    Hmm based on these comments I think for now I'll go with justified text, but check it with a dyslexic friend!

    Drew
    • CommentAuthorJDCorley
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2006
     # 10
    I am used to justified text, legal documents have those lines drawn down either side. I didn't know about the dyslexia thing, hm! I think font choice probably has something to do with this too.

    Elements of Typographic Style represent, yo.
  11.  # 11
    While you're waiting for your book to arrive, here are some things to consider:

    • You want about 65 characters per line. That's about 10 - 12 words. When there are fewer, it's hard to hold onto the meaning in your head when you're going down a line so fast. When there are more, you lose track of which line you're reading.

    • Serifs are easy to read because they show you where the ends of lines are. This is most true when it's lots of words.

    • When there are few words (as in a title) you have much greater freedom than for a text block. Choose fonts that are evocative or whatever. You can make it a visual thing.

    • If you're doing more than one or two words in a row, don't use all-caps. It's terribly unreadable. English readers read by looking at the top profile of words (not reading every letter, or even all of the letters they read), all-caps reduces the recognizablility of words. Use mixed-case.

    • Helvetica's OK. I understand why people are keen on it. But I find it grossly overused. I much prefer Gill Sans or DIN for that kind of work.

    • Caslon's very nice. So's are Garamond, Hoefler, and Minion (all of which come with MacOS, if that's what you're using).

    • Another book to look at: Goodbye Gutenberg, by Valerie Kirschenbaum. Like The Elements of Typographic Style, it assumes digital typesetting, but does what it can to stretch the limits of the medium, drawing from pre-printing press aesthetics as opposed to TEOTS' Gutenberg-based principles.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJosh Roby
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2006 edited
     # 12
    From the academic reading-teacher side of things, force-justified text creates uneven spaces between words and causes slight eye strain in the reader. Not just dyslexic readers; all readers. In unjustified text, the eye learns exactly how far it has to skip to the next word; in justified text, the eye will try to skip forward a standard space but then have to adjust. Most folks can deal with the additional eye strain, but it does make reading harder just a slight bit for absolutely everybody. It makes reading slower and it can crimp on comprehension.

    Once upon a time, folks used to put a larger space after periods to denote the spaces between sentences. This has fallen out of style, at least in part due to force-justified text which generally interprets one space in a line the same as two spaces. What this means for the reader is that it's harder to pick out the beginnings of sentences, which makes it harder to find things in the middle of paragraphs. That can be alleviated by not putting things that need to be referenced in the middle of paragraphs, which is the text structure that's currently in vogue (because now we have cheap paper and infinite screen space). Point being, however, that force-justified text screws this up even more because it's quite possible to have a space between two words in the middle of a sentence be longer than the space between two sentences the next line down. More eye strain, more difficulty, less navigation.

    However, force-justification makes for a nicer-looking text block, plain and simple. It makes the page look clearer and more organized and gives the sense of order when it's not actually being read. (Whether or not it actually is organized when read is a completely different matter.) Serif fonts do the same thing because the serifs line up and create horizontal lines through the text, sort of like the dashed line down the middle of the road, and things look even more compact and in neat little rows. Sans serif fonts tend to look a little more scattered and disorganized, kind of milling about on the page. Now, the question is: do you want your page to look neat and organized, or do you want it to look loose and casual? There's a reason that octaNe is set in sans-serif -- the text layout lends a sort of 'floaty' sense to the reader which is complementary to the very up-in-the-air game that's being described. So while it sounds like 'well organized' is something that might be universally desired, that isn't the case -- the needs of your book may be diametrically opposed to creating a sense of rigid organization.
  13.  # 13
    Consider the number of words in a line, and consider what justification vs. not says, aesthetically. In The Mountain Witch, for instance, the ragged-right nature ofthe text keeps the page from looking too regular; it offsets the regularity of the design.

    In Shock:, though, it's justified because that regularity is an important part of the book; it addresses Modernism. It's like the Glass Block building philosophy.

    The larger the number of words per line, the less fiddly space stuff justification does. At 12 or so, it's really unnoticeable.

    Also, consider the amount of information on the whole. If you've got a sidebar with 50 words, justification can help show the edge of the sidebar.

    Numbers per line is a more important issue than justification, I think.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJosh Roby
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2006
     # 14
    FLFS uses Times-10 and is force-justified just like The (London) Times of the period. < / plug >
    • CommentAuthorLuke Wheel
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2006
     # 15
    Joshua BR, where do you get your information from?

    Joshua AC gives some very good recs for type faces.

    RR23,
    Justified type is set not because it makes the page look pretty, but because it's readable and can hold more type per page than ragged copy. The benefit of justified type is that your all-seeing eye knows exactly where to begin and end each line. Makes for very good long reading when the eye has to go back and forth a lot.

    Serif and sans serif choices are purely stylistic. There is nothing definitive on the readability of either type of type. Sans Serif certainly isn't more "scattered" than serif. Personally, I find semi-serifs like Optima and Tiepolo to be the most readable. So there.

    The true secrets to readability* and all those pesky flex spaces are character space, word space and line space (aka leading). Each font and justification (force justified, rag right, etc.) has different character space and word space needs. These are relative values that tell your layout program how much to stress and compress the type on each line (or in each paragraph for Indesign (which is a better method)). By setting your values correctly, you can minimize rivers and "I could drive a truck through that" word spaces. You can set minimum, optimal and maximal values. The closer these values are to each other, the less flex you get. In general though, you'll want a tight character space and a wider word space. This make your words stick together and appear as unique entities on a line. Setting your character space and word space for justification is the first step to making beautiful type. Using the defaults is the first step to getting ugly type. Ugly type makes baby jesus cry.

    But by far the most crucial (and simplest) method to making readable copy is your line spacing or leading. It's as simple as this: Try for +3, never settle for less than +2. Meaning, whatever the size of your body copy is, your leading should be that value +3 pts at best, +2 at minimum. Space between your lines of copy makes for readable type. It prevents the eye from jumping between lines or reading the same line over again.

    I hope that helps. The only book on type I've read is the adobe type book that comes with the font library and the Agfa Pocket Pal. I've never taken a class or anything. My layouts tend to be rather pedestrian, but they are very readable. And that's all I really care about.
    -Luke

    *I'm not going to get into monotypes and kerning pairs.
  16.  # 16
    Really? More text per page? I dunno, man. If you've got 12 words per line, barring twiddling the tracking, you've got 12 words per line, no matter how big you make the spaces between words.

    Leading is very important, it's true.

    Here's a big deal, something that was a breakthrough when I learned it: all that stuff you learned in school (two spaces after a period, an extra line and an indent between paragraphs...) is all workaround for typewriters. Since it's unlikely anyone reading this forum is actually doing their page layout on a typewriter (except maybe Keith), you don't have to do any of that stuff. Look at how pages in bibles did it pre-Gutenberg:



    Now, they didn't even always put spaces between words, and that's a mark against, to be sure. But note the regularity of the page, and how, for instance, that red text stands out, popping out of the margin. That's not a mistake.

    That big P (which I would guess is really a ro) probably marks the beginning of a chapter or something. Is there anyone here who can read Latin to illuminate me?

    There are [i]lots[/i] of solutions to typographic challenges. Any time you're hitting a key twice, you're doing the solution for a typewriter.

    Me, I like to outdent the first line. Paragraph beginnings really catch your eye. A little extra space gives a rythm to the page. Also, listening to Luke is obviously a good idea (though I'm not too keen on Optima, I think Tiepolo is very nice.)
    •  
      CommentAuthorHoho
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2006
     # 17
    Justification can _shrink_ spaces as well as stretching them.
  18.  # 18
    Yeah, but my assumption has been that it averages out. In fact, I'm gonna go see what happens when I unjustify Shock: right now.

    Edit: Hey, look at that! it's like a 2% difference. Cool!
    •  
      CommentAuthorJosh Roby
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2006 edited
     # 19
    Luke, most of my information comes from pedagogical sources -- educational research and whatnot intended for teachers. I can assure you with pretty profound certainty that justified type is not easier to read. I wish I could cite the source, but the paper I'm thinking about actually measured the movement of the eye and eye fatigue with little cameras that monitored they eye and eyelid and stuff. Which I found creepy, but also interesting in terms of raw data. Additionally, most of the textbooks that we produce have to conform to what's called NASTA Specs, which dictate lots of typographical elements for school books. Part of them are to ensure that the books are durable and can last ten years of classroom use, but a solid chunk of it is based on readability for different levels of readers.

    I'm also siding with OtherJoshua that justification doesn't get you more words on a line. (However if you're using MSWord (which I doubt), maybe hitting justification 'helpfully' does some oddball things in addition to actually changing justification -- with MSWord, all bets are off.) All justification does is take the words that already fit on a line and apportion the spaces between them to a desired effect -- and Shreyas is very right, it can shrink as well as expand spaces, both of which can be confusing for the eye.

    OtherJoshua -- yes, the two-spaces-after-period thing is a typewriter relic. However, keep in mind that that's still what, a hundred years of typographical practice, and the foundation for how a lot of us read? I believe (and I may be totally wrong here, since I'm groping at the edges of my memory) that the two-spaces thing was a 'workaround' to simulate the the old letterblocks which had more space on the right side of the period than the left. (Edit: wikipedia tells me that typesetters would wedge between sentences, thus creating a larger space between sentences, in order to justify the line. Which is sort of what I was saying, and sort of completely different. ;) Now, personally, I just like more space between sentences. I think it makes things a little easier to read and reference. Other folks' mileage may vary.

    But that's the important point to get at -- there are very few 'right' and 'wrong' ways to go about typesetting; there are simply some ways that will get you what you want and complement what the text says, and some ways that will get you stuff you don't want and detract from what the text says.
    •  
      CommentAuthorHoho
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2006
     # 20
    JBR, do you have a web or print reference for the NASTA specs?

    I'd be pretty interested in such a thing, for knowing like the details of emulating the "textbook style." (And, actually, similar style kits for other looks would be excelent as well.)
    •  
      CommentAuthorJosh Roby
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2006
     # 21
    Annoying, NASTA specs are not available online (that I'm aware). This may have something to do with them being a few hundred pages long. They're very, very elaborate.

    Best I can do is point at their website. =P
    •  
      CommentAuthorMikeRM
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2006 edited
     # 22
    Joshua (A.C.): The illuminated capital is the beginning of a new bibilical book, in this instance. The rubric (red letters) says "Incipit parabolae solomonis" - "The beginning of the Proverbs of Solomon". The P (which is a P) is the first letter of the first word of the book, "Parabolae" (Proverbs).

    I love medieval manuscripts.
    • CommentAuthorLuke Wheel
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2006
     # 23
    Joshua AC: One of the things I do at my job is lay out the Patient Information sheets for pharmaceuticals. You know, the single sheet of solid copy that has all the indications and adverse effects that comes with your meds? And I can tell you that those pieces can't be set rag right because it wastes too much space. I'm not talking about words per line, I'm talking about words per page. Forced justification simply uses the space more efficiently.

    Joshua BR: I shall also cite anecdotal evidence and say that I'm right! One, I heard of a study done once about the eye flipping back and forth along lines of type, too. I can't site the study either. Two, I find it easier to read. Three, the majority of type is set this way. I'm certain the first consideration for justification is economical -- more words per page -- but I'd be durn suprised if ease of use wasn't a consideration as well.

    Also, never, never twiddle the tracking. And don't ever auto-hyphenate. It's an artifact of bad typography and as the justification controls in DTP software increase, it becomes less and less necessary. It certainly sucks to read. Look at BW, no hyphenation (except in like two places that I had to manually put in to make the copy flow).

    -L
  24.  # 24
    I've always heard that ragged layout improves readability. I have moderate anecdotal evidence to back me up.

    And I'll just add that leading is like cowbell. It never hurts to have a little more.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAlex F
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2006 edited
     # 25
    OK you guys, you've just gone and made me do some research, when I should have been spending my morning....doing some research. But a different kind, ok?

    According to this article (from Frontiers in Education Conference, 1997. 27th Annual Conference. 'Teaching and Learning in an Era of Change'. Proceedings):
    "One more item needs mentioning: justified vs. ragged right (left justified) text. Do right margins affect legibility? The consensus is that they do not. Unlike serif vs. sans serif, readers do equally well with either. For blocks of text, always avoid right-justified (ragged left) or centered. For very narrow (newspaper columns), justified is better, but for ordinary text there is no clear preference."
    It cites
    Moriarty, Op Cit. pg. 144, which I think refers to Moriarty, Sandra E. (1996) The ABC’s of Typography, Art Direction Book Company, Inc. Glenbrook CT.

    [ed to add source]
    •  
      CommentAuthorrrr23
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2006
     # 26
    Wow! so many more responses! Thanks a lot for this info, it's all good stuff. That's definitely enough for me to be getting on with. I think I now need to read that book, before I get swamped in stuff I don't quite understand.

    Cheers folks

    Drew
    • CommentAuthorkruug
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2006
     # 27
    Yes, I think reading the book is the best way to learn.
    Bringhurst is amazing. He's managed to write a poetic book about something that seems dry at face value. It's probably the only textbook I've thoroughly enjoyed reading.
    • CommentAuthorkruug
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2006
     # 28
    Here's a pdf of great typefaces, for those of you who aren't sure what to use. It was created by my typography professor. I disagree with one or two of the selections, but overall it's a good reference.
    Great Typefaces (pdf)
  29.  # 29
    From the DHHS usability guidelines (15:4): "Reading text is easier when capitalization is used conventionally to start sentences and to indicate proper nouns and acronyms. If an item is intended to attract the user’s attention, display the item in all uppercase, bold, or italics. Do not use these methods for showing emphasis for more than one or two words or a short phrase because they slow reading performance when used for extended prose"

    Serif vs. sans-serif reading speed and comprehension research. This supports the use of serif fonts as a better choice for usability. Legibility and reading speed, again siding with serif fonts. All for screen instead of print but the results should transfer to some degree.

    Paterson, D.G. & Tinker, M.A. (1940b). Influence of line width on eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 27, 572 – 577: When designing, first determine if performance or preference is most important. Users read faster when line lengths are long. However, they tend to prefer shorter line lengths, even though reading shorter lines generally slows overall reading speed. One study found that line lengths of about twenty characters reliably slowed reading speed. When space for text display is limited, display a few longer lines of text rather than many shorter lines of text. Always display continuous text in columns containing at least fifty characters per line.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJasper
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2006 edited
     # 30
    I can't give a citation at the moment, but -- having read up a bit on usability recently -- I recall that some studies found shorter line lengths increase comprehension (despite, apparently, taking longer...or maybe because of that?). Also, some people have claimed that sans-serif is easier to read on the screen...the evidence is not very clear and that may not be true, but I'd still be warry of equating screen and print reading.
  31.  # 31
    Yes, there have been studies that show san-serif is easier to read onscreen at smaller font sizes. This is because a printed page is usually 300/600 dpi while a screen is only 72/96 dpi. More importantly however would be using a font that was designed for appropriate media (screen or print). At smaller font sizes the serifs can become indistinct.

    Verdana, Tahoma, Georgia -- generally not good choices for print, but superior choices for text on a screen at small font sizes. Garamond looks great in print -- not so good on the screen at small font sizes.
  32.  # 32
    Given:

    * Force-justified text is more difficult to read (because of irregular inter-word spacing)
    * But force-justified text looks better on the page
    * Non-french spacing between sentences makes finding sentence breaks in a paragraph more difficult

    I propose "semi-justified": Partially justify text by only expanding inter-sentence spacing to nudge right edges to look less ragged. This leaves regular inter-word spacing and also simulates French spacing, which should improve readability.
    •  
      CommentAuthorHoho
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2006
     # 33
    Can you make that work in InDesign?
    • CommentAuthorLuke Wheel
    • CommentTimeJul 28th 2006
     # 34
    Indesign has a function called Balance Ragged Lines which, as indicated by the name, tries to smooth out the rag on non-justified copy. I don't work with ragged type so much, so I'm not used it. I found the function to be a bit wierd.
    • CommentAuthorFaerieloch
    • CommentTimeJul 29th 2006
     # 35
    What about using the old practice of hyphenating words? I've seen it used in many novels that are justified so you don't end up with uneven spacing.

    --Nancy
    •  
      CommentAuthorJasper
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2006
     # 36
    Hyphenating isn't exactly "old practice." As you say, it's pretty common. InDesign/Quark will handle it quite nicely too. (Exept I'm still waiting for InDesign to allow hyphens to dangle off the edge of the paragraph.)
    • CommentAuthorLuke Wheel
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2006
     # 37
    Jasper, if you mean having hyphens and other punctuation hang outside of the margins, the function is, oddly, called STORY. It's in the TYPE menu.

    And I still say that if you set your justification correctly, you don't need hyphens. Hyphens are hard to read.

    -Luke
    •  
      CommentAuthorJasper
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2006
     # 38
    Woah. Thanks, Luke. I just got InDesign CS, and had looked but not found that.
  39.  # 39
    Luke knows things. Many things. I want to clone him.
  40.  # 40
    Matt, I don't think cloning Luke is a good idea. I'm pretty sure that it would cause the to collapse under the weight of the manic creative genius...

    Thomas

    Edited to point out: 'cause the to collapse'. What is it that might collapse? I have decided that this typo is really a call for you to fill in the blank!
  41.  # 41
    The Wheel. One Luke and it burns. Two and it collapses.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJasper
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2006
     # 42
    And "Collapsing Wheel" just isn't as exciting sounding a game.
    • CommentAuthorMatt Snyder
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2006 edited
     # 43
    Luke says don't adjust tracking, ever. I do it all the time. Why? To take care of pesky widows and orphans, usually. I also do it within pretty tight limits.

    The other reason: Most kerning on most typefaces (yes, even the good ones -- all of them) is shitty for titling. I twiddle the hell out of that stuff all the time, eyeballing it like Tiger Woods on the 18th green. (Actually, in this case I'm mostly adjusting kerning, not tracking, but sizing up each pair of letters at a time. However, occasionally I first adjust tracking, setting the whole damn thing tighter, then hit each pair of letters.).When it looks good, it looks good, and I leave it alone. How's that for advice?
  44.  # 44
    Yeah, I adjust tracking to deal with widows and orphans, too, Matt. Within limits, and never if it looks bad. I tend to trust my aesthetic sense instead of always sticking to an ironclad rule.

    Still, Luke is totaly right (as he always is with all things print). Good justification settings are a must.
    • CommentAuthorLuke Wheel
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2006
     # 45
    You know, a simple non-breaking space takes care of widows and orphans. Select the space between the end of the second to last line and the orphan. In quark hit command+space, in Indesign hit command+option+X. Voila. It'll either bring up the word to the previous line or it'll bring down a second word thereby eliminating the lonely little blighter.

    Indesign prefers to bring down words (rather than take them up) at the expense of its awesome paragraph composer justification. But there's a simple work around trick to that. If after the non-breaking space trick, the second to last line has bad word spacing, force justify the paragraph. This will engage the minimum justification -- which you've set already -- and tuck the widows back up into the paragraph.

    Two clicks and no messy tracking!

    I know. I have a disease. But I'm contagious.

    -Luke
  46.  # 46

    I find that tweaking pagewide leading makes a more subtle way to prevent widows and orphans. If you do it to the whole page by a tiny amount, the overall effect on that widow/orphan is usually plenty.

    Bringhurst says that you should make the lines match from page to page, but I actually think that forces a huge gutter to keep your eye from traveling to the second page. I prefer them to not match.

    As for tracking, I know, it's a befrowned practice, but when you've got a single line that says "to." at the end of a paragraph, the easiest way to fix it is by reducing the tracking of the entire paragraph by a tiny amount. Again, the effect between a given glyph pair is very small, but the aggregate effect on the paragraph is sufficient to fix that crappy extra line.

    Matt, for titles, I think it's all fair game; you're generating a visual icon of the subject out of a word. I usually do titles in Illustrator so I can change the character of the characters way beyond mere tracking, redrawing them completely sometimes.

    •  
      CommentAuthorJosh Roby
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2006
     # 47
    Since we're chiming in on preferences, I prefer standardized leading across all pages, and I'd rather cut or add copy to fix an orphan or widow than fiddle with the type.
    • CommentAuthorMatt Snyder
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2006 edited
     # 48
    To clarify, I'm not talking about logos (I kern the hell out of those, too, and -- like Joshua -- I do it in Illustrator 90% of the time, although I rarely distort typefaces, 'cause I love 'em.). I'm talking about titles-- chapter titles, hell even large subheadings on rare occasions. Letterspacing on anything over 20 pts sucks almost 100% of the time. Re-doing letterspacing is a bitch. It's possible. It's also nearly impossible. A few years ago I went nutso on Bembo, one of my favorites. Got it just where I wanted it after about 200 printouts. Then I realized the word spacing was also all wrong. Back to sqaure 1.

    Luke, you're sick. The best way to get rid of widows and orphans? Rewrite the fucking paragraph already! Yes, I realize you probably know all this stuff from the day job, and that rewriting won't work then. But, hell, we're indie publishers talking here, right? Who the hell else is gonna write it?!? Contagious my ass.
  49.  # 49

    Oh, Matt, I agree about chapter heads and the like. I'm an avid sheep thief when things get big, or even small-but-few-words.

1 to 49 of 49

  1.