In this case though I guess it's an understandable last resort and perhaps better than breaking the line or forcing it out of the frame as overset text, although I would frankly prefer the later.Īgreed, these are very unlikely situations in actual typesetting. Otherwise you can always force an override by using em spaces instead of normal ones. Under these extreme circumstances I'll think you'll see it happen. Then create a couple of fairly small columns and fill them with placeholder text, perhaps deleting a few spaces as well so as to make longer words. Unless it's been fixed in version 2.0 (I only tried it in 1.5): make a new paragraph style with word spacing set very tight (90-100-110 or even less) and glyph scaling 98-100-102, allow max 1 hyphenation in a row and ofcourse no letterspacing. If you have minimum and maximum settings of 98 and 102 respectively, you could end up with a difference between two adjacent lines of 4 per cent, and I think even non-type people subconsciously (if not consciously) notice this difference. For the first, use glyph scaling of 100, 100, 100 for the second, 102, 102, 102 and for the third, 98, 98, 98, and then compare them, especially the last two. For those who doubt that minor changes can be noticed, try setting three identical lines of type, each fully justified, in ID. That's why his Bible is held up as a classic of typography - he didn't take the easy way. And that's not meant as a criticism of those who do use glyph scaling - it's just my personal answer to the question posed by Michelle.īut I do disagree that Gutenberg would have used scaling - after all, if he'd wanted to do things the easy way and save himself "a whole lot of bother", he'd never have hung the punctuation or created the wide range of different width sorts and ligatures that he did. My aim is to try to produce type as wonderful as the handset hot metal type of old. I also want to use optical masters, not simple scaled typefaces, though in many cases that's just not possible. That is, I don't want to distort the type forms just because I can't immediately see a better way to break the lines or don't want to take the time to do it. Yep, as Thomas says, and as a self-proclaimed purist, I would like to see stroke thickness consistent across lines. I say it's time to strike a blow for hyphenation and reintroduce the concept of even tight spacing! Now hyphens are out or limited to two in a row (by contrast, if we turn again to Gutenberg, we often see four, five, or six hyphens in a row in the 42-line Bible). It used to be that letterspacing was considered a cardinal sin and that hyphenating was far preferable to uneven and wide word spacing. Sorry? Since when? She then went on to advocate adjusting horizontal spacing, which I take to mean letterspacing, instead of using hyphens. Indeed, in a recent design magazine, a so-called type "expert" wrote "hyphens are fine for compound words, but they don't belong at the end of a line of type". #CHANGE LETTERSPACE INDESIGN FULL#It seems to me that many people these days avoid hyphenating words at all, and if they do hypenate them, they do it no more than twice in a row, and that this has led to the prevalence of letterspacing and other undesirable practices (I'm sure we've all seen a single word spread out to occupy the full width of a narrow column). A full implementation of glyph scaling should have a result akin to using multiple masters, but Adobe has acknowledged that resource considerations were one of the reasons that this was not done in ID. The difference is the same as between using a true condensed font and a compressed font. Herman Zapf's HZ program (which provided the basis for ID's h&j routines) allowed for glyph scaling, but, and this is important, the counters were to be adjusted, not the strokes. They were created with the same care as the standard glyphs, just as all metal type used to be optimised for its size or width, not merely scaled. But I think he would be a little miffed if it were suggested that these were no more than mathematically scaled versions. Sure, Gutenberg used glyphs of different widths. I would never use glyph scaling (as implemented in ID) or letterspacing when justifying text.Īnd I can't let the mention of Gutenberg's Bible pass without comment. Glyph scaling, good or bad - bad I say, but then I'm a purist.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |