Typophile - Seeking Resources for Page-Spread Design - Comments

With all the kind words

charles_e — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:58:18 -0800

With all the kind words about the Glossary of Typesetting Terms I got out my copy & reread a little.

I really can’t recommend anyone spending hard-earned dollars on this, at least, if their view is to find something as instructive as the books by Bringhurst, Hendel, etc.

The Glossary came out of an AAUP panel in 1990 about why typesetting seemed to have fallen off in quality in “recent” times. As you may remember, 1990 was just at the beginning of the PostScript era, and most all composition was still done with photocomp machines, some of them “professional” (Linotron 202), some of them less so (the lesser offerings from Compugraphic, A/M, etc.). Part of the problem was the fonts, but the largest problem was the use of the equipment.

So, there were multiple answers to why typesetting quality was diminishing: (1) good shops still turned out excellent comp, but (2) the cost of getting into setting type was much lower with photocomp, so anybody with $30,000 could get into the business, and (3) the unions were at an end, which mean the apprenticeship programs too were gone.

There was a forth factor. Just as apprenticeship had fallen off for compositors, apprenticeship had also fallen off for designers, and to some extent, editors. Some newer designers had trouble expressing what they wanted, and a number of editors had little understanding of the compromises involved in setting type. This lead to an increase of proscriptive rules (don’t do this). As the number of things one couldn’t do increased, the choices a comp had in resolving an awkward situation diminished.

In any case, the Glossary was aimed only at the fourth problem. But the world has changed again. By now (2008), many of the technical terms and procedures of the photocomp era seem out of date. The fonts are different (PostScript, OpenType), the layout programs are different (PageMaker, Quark, InDesign, etc.). In many ways, what is considered good design has changed as well.

The Glossary covered a period of history and the problems of that time. I do think there is still something one can learn from it, but things have changed enough so anyone desiring a quick understanding of what constitutes “good design and composition” would be better served by works either more basic, or more specific to present times.

FWIW

Charles Ellertson

I spoke to soon. It’s a

Stephen Coles — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:12:12 -0800

I spoke to soon. It’s a “book preview”, which means some pages are omitted. But you can get a good idea of the contents. Thanks for introducing me to this book, Will and Kent. It’s never seen on the lists of typographer’s must-haves.

Just a note to inform you

Stephen Coles — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:10:13 -0800

Just a note to inform you all that “Glossary of Typesetting Terms” is now available for online reading at Google.

When I saw a thread

JCSalomon — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:44:18 -0800

When I saw a thread entitled 8½×11″, I thought I’d add a link to this thread—but it’s two years old, so I’m linking the other way ’round.
—Joel

I want to second Will’s

kentlew — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 06:56:05 -0800

I want to second Will’s enthusiastic review of the Glossary of Typesetting Terms. The prosaic title may belie its value to a designer. (“A glossary? — What, are you kidding me?!”) Really, it is surprisingly readable. I, too, went pretty much straight through — albeit not in a single sitting, not in a hammock, and not with summer refreshment. I continue to refer to it now and again, and it’s a good resource to have, right alongside Bringhurst.

When learning a craft, I think it’s important to try to get inside the “rules” and understand the principles behind them. Charles is right to caution against using them as a crutch. One needs to educate one’s eyes and one’s mind. Part of this may come initially from following such guidelines, but only by then looking, contemplating, comparing, and understanding.

But over time, rules should recede, and experience will take over.

— K.

Will, I wasn’t being

charles_e — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:21:20 -0800

Will,

I wasn’t being personal — I’m well aware you don’t need crutches. But book design is more akin to set design for the theater, or perhaps as often said, architecture (I’m less happy with the architecture analogy). I’m sure there are other possibilities as well. But whatever your favorite analogy, it shouldn’t be engineering. A volt is a volt, and it shows up as such on a calibrated meter.

The remark was aimed generally. I am puzzled that so many of the people who frequent Typophile feel Bringhurst’s book is a kind of bible — it is, after all, basically mid-20th century British typography — and yet the same people feel the fonts of the period are dated & should not be used.

For J. C. Salmon, I believe the point to consider is that, at least historically, the proper element of a book is not a single page, but a spread; two pages. The relationship of the type block to the spread is such that the gutter (between the two pages) should be visually smaller that the outer margins.

Now first of all, you may not agree that the *open* book is the proper thing to view. Certainly other means of presenting text give a different relationship. But even if you accept that traditional perspective, judging that gutter gets pretty difficult given the various binding techniques today. And remember too that most book design today is for a what is called “split production.” That means that, say, 2,500 copies will be printed, and 1,000 will be Smythe-sewn with a hard case, and 1,500 will be bound paperback — either perfect bound, or notch bound. That means compromise. Do you penalize the more expensive Smythe-sewn copies so the cheap paperbacks have a nice gutter, or do you suffer a tight paperback gutter for a pleasant cloth bound book? Or compromise both just a little?

I did not speak of

will powers — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:29:18 -0800

I did not speak of “rules.” I did speak of what I’d call “good practice.” And I have violated my own ideas of good practice quite often. Most of the time with intention. Sometimes by mistake that went un-caught. I have done all the things Charles notes that Richard did.

One has to start out somewhere, especially when someone new to this sort of work asks opinions. I see that Mr Salomon is an engineer, and he has taken an interest in typography, asking advice from those of us who read this forum. So I suggested to him some good practices. I do not know how much leeway is allowed from good practice among engineers, people who deal with very precise specifications. I bet really good engineers know where they can introduce variations safely.

I do not use crutches, and I trust my many years of experience. I also trust my skills and my understanding of the page to tell me when I may deviate from good practice. I also encourage myself to try new things, regardless of how they may vary from my training.

I do regard Richard as an extraordinarily good book designer, and I’m sorry I did not have many occasions to talk about the craft with him. Saying that, I will suggest to anyone who wants to know how to put pages together that they read a very good book on which Richard & Charles collaborated with 4 other skilled typographers.

That book is “Glossary of Typesetting Terms”, published in 1994 by U of Chicago Press. This is an essential text. When my copy arrived on a summer day, I took it to the hammock for a quick first look. What happened was that I did not get out of the hammock except once, to pour a good gin-and-tonic. I read the whole damn book through in one sitting, as thrilled as if it were a fine novel. And wrote comments all over the pages. For several years Chicago was selling it in their annual sale for 6 bucks a copy. I would buy ten or twelve copies and on the last day of typography class I’d give them to the students. This is as important a book as Bringhurst (which I have students work with during the semester).

cheers.

powers

I find all these rules

charles_e — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:06:17 -0800

I find all these *rules* more like *crutches.* I think Will would allow that Richard Eckersley was one of the better book designers of the last half of the twentieth century. Much of Richard’s attention was the look of the page. A few things he tried, and over time, accepted:

1. Carding (feathering, vertical justification) was required in setting his books. He usually used about 13.5 points of lead, and around 38 lines (so 37 line spaces) per page. With carding, the variance would be 37 or 39 lines per page — with 37, leading would be 13.875, with 39, leading would be 3.145. A “plus” carded page could not face a “minus” carded page.

2. Avoid the first line of a paragraph ending a page. “Avoid” meant just that. If doing so caused a worse problem, go ahead & end the page with a 1st line.

3. No widows, but if a line ran 75% or more of full measure, and you were in a real bad situation, it was allowed. Of course, in a work having a lot of dialog, a single short line was allowed.

When Richard was setting a book himself (always PageMaker), he would vary the measure a bit (for the whole page or spread) to see if he got a better page (well, chapter). Most of us use applications programs where this isn’t practical. But I do remember from the days of the Linotron 202 that output could vary as much as 3 points over a 26-pica measure, day to day. If you were making patch corrections (2nd, 3rd proof) and that happened, you centered that long/short correction over the existing type, and it wasn’t really noticeable. If the horizontal amplifier go so far off you could notice the different line lengths, you had to reset the correction, using a smaller (larger) specified measure. BTW, the older Linotype VIP was worse than the 202 at holding a constant measure across days.

Anyway, the point is that from Richrd’s perspective, the look of the page was paramount, and all his composition rules were keyed to how he wanted the page to look. Others may have a different idea of what constitutes a good page, or even feel that there is something more basic. To say the *rules* require this or that is only to show you don’t have much experience and/or don’t trust what your experience has shown you.

> A single first line of a

Don McCahill — Wed, 9 Jan 2008 06:25:23 -0800

> A single first line of a paragraph standing alone at the bottom of a page or column

The one area where this does not work, and probably why it is bundled in with widows as a no-no, is in technical documentation, or other work where there is a blank line before a paragraph. In this situation a lone (orphaned) line looks odd, rather like an additional footer.

In bookwork, with no paragraph spacing, the orphan is completely acceptable (until you get an editor who knows a bit less than they think they know).

I have encountered so much

kentlew — Tue, 8 Jan 2008 14:44:41 -0800

I have encountered so much contention, disagreement, and confusion about the definitions of widow and orphan that I now try to avoid using the terms altogether. The important thing, as Will outlined, is to understand the three questionable situations and to establish guidelines for what is and what is not acceptable and under what circumstances.

Echoing some of what Will covered (with which I mostly concur):

A) A single last line separated from its paragraph by either page turn, or across the spread, or a jump to the top of the next column. All of these circumstances are almost universally considered persona non grata. I differ from Will in that I generally won’t accept any of these even if the last line is nearly full measure. If the last line is truly full measure and will justify as such, then I might conceivably let it pass as a last resort. I will look more leniently on a full line separated across the spread than one across a page turn. In unjustified text, I might let a shorter line pass, but I reserve the right to judge such in context, and I would still try to avoid it.

B) A short final line in a paragraph. There are varying definitions/guidelines regarding what constitutes an unacceptable last line. The one I hear most commonly is “must have at least x letters,” where x can vary usually from 5 to 7. I don’t subscribe to such a fixed standard. To me, it is relative to the design. My general rule of thumb is that the last line should be at least twice the indent — the point being that it should provide enough visual weight to the end of the paragraph that the indent of the next not combine to create a queer isthmus.

Longer measures or more elegant designs are less tolerant of shorter last lines, in which case my rule might adjust to require a last line to be at least 1/3 the measure. Narrower columns or more prosaic matter, on the other hand, may admit of looser standards.

A paragraph should never end with the tail of a hyphenated word break, regardless of its length.

C) A single first line of a paragraph standing alone at the bottom of a page or column. I agree that this is acceptable and I will generally let it stand. I do feel that it is not entirely desirable, and if there is an opportunity to avoid it immediately available, I will prefer to eliminate this situation.

— K.

ORPHANS are acceptable. I

Florian Hardwig — Tue, 8 Jan 2008 13:13:13 -0800

ORPHANS are acceptable.

I agree. And we don’t call them ‘orphans’ anymore, that’s so pathetic. Now they’re ‘cliffhangers’ . Officially pimped!

What you DON’T want is to

DanGayle — Tue, 8 Jan 2008 11:35:39 -0800

What you DON’T want is to have one of those little buggers turn the page and be the only word at the top of a block of text. That is so tacky and ugly. Or even worse, the second half of a hyphenated word. Yuck.

Will have you written a

Miss Tiffany — Tue, 8 Jan 2008 10:58:30 -0800

Will have you written a book? This is great stuff. I will start to use your rules as Widows and Orphans have always bothered me but some of your rules eliminate some of my heartache.

. . . And Kent. Kent your stuff is great too. I need to re-read this entire thread.

I fully agree with Kent’s

will powers — Tue, 8 Jan 2008 10:56:08 -0800

I fully agree with Kent’s & Don’s comments about feathering or adding space between paras. I recently did allow 1/4 point feathering of one page, for there really was no other way round it in a very complex ms and the facing page was so odd that no one would notice [except those fanatics who hold pages to the light to check back-up].

But you also need to decide what you will call a widow and what you will call an orphan, and what is unacceptable. There is much difference of opinion among typographers concerning the correct definitions of these words, as well as difference about the acceptability of widows & orphans.

Here are my opinions, for book work.

WIDOWS are not acceptable. A widow is defined as a paragraph exit line that is the first line of a text page & that is less than full measure. A full-measure exit line in such position is not a widow, & may be permitted to stand. A short single-line text paragraph is not a widow, wherever it falls. A single-line subhead of any length is not a widow. Widows approximately 75% of measure can be accepted in ragged right settings.

ORPHANS are acceptable. An orphan is the first line of a paragraph falling as the last line of a page or column.

Designers trained for advertising work often have harsher rules about widows and orphans than designers trained for bookwork, for their concerns are often more “aesthetic” than “text-serving.”

During my tenure as an advertising type director I was often asked by art directors to kill a short line—a “widow”—that fell in the middle of a column. The only thing I could do was haul in the writer and get text added or killed. For some reason these “widows” were not OK. I never could see that.

Nor would they allow orphans (as described above). I was more willing to accept this than the overly-heated fear of short lines mid-text. But there’s absolutely nothing wrong in book work with starting a para on the last line of a page. The indent is not unsightly.

powers

> (For example, adjusting

Don McCahill — Tue, 8 Jan 2008 07:39:42 -0800

> (For example, adjusting the inter-paragraph spacing to avoid widows & orphans, which I think looks better than changing all the leading on the page.)

I also object to feathering of this type. If there are only 3 paragraphs on a page, you are adding 4 or more points between them, which would look like a blank line to the average eye. (You can safely save or lose a line around a subhead by varying the spacing around these, in many cases).

The traditional way of avoiding widows (when editing is not allowed) is to run pages a line short/long. Both pages on a spread are run either one line longer or shorter than the text block. You occasionally have to go back two or more spreads to avoid the problem. Normally you would never go directly from a long spread to a short spread, or vice versa.

Seeking Resources for Page-Spread Design

JCSalomon — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:02:04 -0800

I’ve been trying to design a page spread for a fiction book but I’m not finding many examples worth emulating. Just about every recent book in the library uses equal spacing on all four sides, some pushing the text into the spine or crowding the outside of the page. Sometimes both.
I’ve read up on the subject and found references to ‘canons’ and various uses of the golden section, and that modern usage (for good or ill) doesn’t much make use of them—but all the reputable sources (e.g., Bringhurst, or the LᴬTᴇX Memoir Class documentation) suggest learning from examples. Of which I can’t find any!
Can folks suggest publishers whose books tend to exemplify good design? I’m looking at hard-cover formats at sizes close to 6×9″. (Jason Dewinetz suggested 5¾×9″ instead.)
Also, what hints are there in a book that some care was taken with typography? The American edition of the Harry Potter books, for instance, are very proud of their layout and include a colophon describing the font, but the type block is set unusually low on the page and the text—especially in the thicker books—tends toward the spine. The ’98 HarperCollins edition of The Silmarillion is comfortably placed on the page, but the text is set and leaded poorly. In cases like these, is the ‘good’ layout more likely deliberate-but-incomplete or accidental? Can I learn from these?
Thanks,
—Joel