Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!murtoa.cs.mu.oz.au!ditmela!diemen!tasis!ben From: ben@tasis.utas.oz.au@munnari.oz (Ben Lian) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Word 4.0 fractional widths still farcical (Grumble) [Long] Message-ID: <1101@diemen.cc.utas.oz> Date: 8 Nov 89 09:18:34 GMT References: <1082@diemen.cc.utas.oz> <122912@felix.UUCP> <1090@diemen.cc.utas.oz> <1989Nov3.141748.18511@iex.uucp> Sender: root@diemen.cc.utas.oz Distribution: comp Organization: Elec Eng & Comp Sci, Uni of Tasmania, Australia Lines: 59 In article <1989Nov3.141748.18511@iex.uucp> cramer@athens.UUCP (Bill Cramer) writes: >In article <1090@diemen.cc.utas.oz> ben@tasis.utas.oz.au@munnari.oz (Ben Lian) writes: >>This follow-up really should be in comp.text, but since the thread started >>here.... >> >>In article <122912@felix.UUCP> kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) writes: >>>In article <1082@diemen.cc.utas.oz> ben@tasis.utas.oz.au@munnari.oz (Ben Lian) writes: >>> >>>For those who don't have to use justification, fractional widths does get >>>rid of the wide spaces between italicized words. Also all technical >>>writing does not imply mathematical/chemical etc. text using symbol font. >>>Some studies have shown that ragged right is preferable to justification >>>for readability. So why do people persist in using justification? >>> >seminars was on human interface issues. The issue of justification came >up then, and the opinion of the seminar teachers was that ragged right was >easier to read. Several of these teachers were published; the only one >I can remember off hand was the guy who wrote a common college text on >human interfaces -- "Interactive Graphic Interfaces" or something like >that. I think his name was "Foley". Sorry I can't come up with a more >exact reference -- they say the memory is the first thing to go (or was >it the second? :-) > >At any rate, (now I am digressing into my own opinion...), flush right >does indeed *look* prettier (IMHO). That does not necessarily mean that >flush right *reads* easier -- a BIG, BIG difference. The cleanest LOOKING >page (again, IMHO) is one set in 10 point times with 6 1/2 inch flush >right columns. It's neat, it's sweet, and it's damn hard to read more >than a page or two without stopping to rub your eyes and stare out the >window for a bit. Yes, of course! In addition to good hyphenation, I should have added that overall page design is important. Both ragged right and full justification are awful if (a) the leading is wrong and (b) the columns are too wide. White space must also be used carefully. A rough guide to how wide lines should be is to try to have between 10 to 12 words per line, or about 60 to 70 characters (including spaces). There are no hard and fast rules; one has to trust one's eye and experience. For example, with TeX's Computer Modern font, I like 12 point type on 13 point leading, and a line width of just under 150mm (sorry, we're metric down here). I could probably get away with 10 or 20mm more because Computer Modern has a wider pitch than, say, Times (at the same size). Incidentally, one other reason why I prefer TeX and Computer Modern is that the characters look better formed at the LaserWriter's 300dpi resolution. Times, Palatino, and other serifed and semi-serifed fonts are simply too subtle for a printer of such low resolution to render properly, particularly at anything under 14 points. In fact, it is positively pathetic compared to a Linotype at 1200dpi! But at USD 6.00 per A4 page, I can't afford to be too fussy! Really, page design is a difficult business. I'm only at amateur at it. So, call me a fool if you will, but I still say that flush right is NOT an ancient fad. Ben Lian Dept of EE & CS, Uni of Tasmania, GPO Box 252C, Hobart TAS 7001, Australia UUCP: ...!{uunet,ukc,mcvax,hplabs,nttlab}!munnari!tasis.utas.oz!ben ACSnet: ben@tasis.utas.oz Ph: 002-202380 Fax: 002-202713