Re: Font Selection Methodology
>>I can pick a font in 10 seconds and produce serviceable, usable, and
clear,
though perhaps not elegant, documents. Or I can spend days agonizing over
getting the font choice absolutely perfect, and end up not having time to
make a last editing pass or two at troublesome, complicated passages,
resulting in an unhelpful document with beautiful production values.
Arlen,
This is begging the issue.
The "days agonizing over getting the font choice absolutely perfect" was the thing I referred to.
Funny, I thought it *was* the issue.
No. The issue is what is within the domain of typography. You seem to be stressing that the selection of a typeface is it. I am pushing the point that intimate with this and indivisible are the factors within the domain of typography. They involve far more than the selection of a face, or font, or spacing, or margins, or colour (density), or ... It is all of these things. Add alignment, weights, contrasts, line length, leading, and a myriad of things not mentioned so far. All this and more evolved that affect the readability of a writer's work.
These things are as interrelated as a writer's selection of voice, subject, predicate, tense, and level. What a difference a writer can make. It's obvious to another practitioner when someone who knows what they're doing is doing it
Imagine hearing, "I'll always be able to produce a servicable document using the present tense."
Then, someone else mentions that it might be handy to use past tense.
Pretty soon, past-perfect is mentioned and suddenly we're agonising and obsessing about tense. I can pick a verb tense in less that 10 seconds and have a good set of instructions. That's why technical writing is so easy to get right. It's a mechanical thing, a formula that anyone who knows a verb from a nown can get right.
... nuts
Writing is the combination of all these things intimate and indivisible from one another.
> I doubt if you (or anyone) can produce a
document with beautiful production values in 10 seconds as you claim
here. Leaving that red-herring aside...
Am I *really* having such a bad day that I can't write anything that anyone
understands? Look at that quote. I never said that. The worst I can twist
it into saying is that I can do it in days. What I said was I could pick
the font in 10 seconds. I didn't say that was the end of the project.
(Though I suppose to hear some of the comments made from this thread,
perhaps picking the font *is* all there is to the project, and nothing else
matters. Except page margins, I guess.)
Guilty as charged. Apologies offered here and eleswhere.
>Example: I have just received a book where the margins have been set
so that the centre of the booklet (the gutter) isn't wide enough and
the words in the closest columns are too close to the binding to read.
Isn't it interesting that when I say fonts are one of the lesser worries in
a project, I get comments about design issues unrelated to font selection
handed to me as evidence that I am wrong?
The 'design issues' that you think are unrelated to font selection are typographic issues. They are all related. Typography has to do with publication design.
>You are selling the role of typography short. It isn't knowing what
the history of a typeface is. It is being aware of all the variations
and having the wherewithal to make an informed choice about the look
of the beast.
Actually, history *is* a part of typography, and a fascinating part. There
is a *reason* for a particular typeface to come into existence. It is
designed to solve a problem more than it is to salve a designer's ego. If
you know what problems the face was designed to solve, you have a leg up on
knowing how best to use it. You also get a feel for what drawbacks might
come of using it. I didn't mention history idly; it's quite informative.
You can trace the influences down through history from Manutius and Griffo
to Eric Gill, Herman Zapf and Sumner Stone. You can see which fonts have
picked up which attributes of earlier ones, which connect you to other
possible reasons to use them. You can see how improvements in technology
affected the evolution of a face, and see where the next tech will take
you. It's a big help in understanding the why's of a particular font.
I agree with the "history is part of typography" part since history is necessary prologue to any discipline. I take exception to proclaiming that choosing a font is typography. It is only a part.
> Mine [knowlege of typography] was [shallow] until I saw
>how someone who knew what they were doing redid my work. The
transformation was stunning. I became a believer and I started
looking into the issue and learned enough to value the contribution.
Then it appears you actually followed at least part of the advice I've
offered. Do what you can, then mark down what you can't to make yourself
better for the next time.
!
That's not what you said or what I inferred. I would have agreed with that. I am not referring to the mere look of the thing. I saw that it read easier. Things that needed emphasis gained measured notice without sacrificing the flow of the document. I learned about typography not font selection.
>Bruce, others, and I are taking exception with your position that if
you don't have the inclination to search for perfection it isn't
necessary to try to improve the readability/usability of the
document.
If that's the position you're taking issue with, I wish you well. And when
you've demolished that particular straw man, I'll be happy to discuss my
position with you. It shouldn't take you long so I'll wait. Finished? Good.
Hey, you keep harping on font selection. That is where I say stop. There is more to this than font selection (and history)
You see, my position has nothing whatsoever to do with inclination and
everything to do with time. When the project's clock is ticking, you do the
best you can with what you know. That means take what you know about fonts
and spend a few minutes selecting the font (10 seconds is an acceptable
time, if you feel comfortable with your knowledge) before getting started
collecting and organizing the material for your project. When you have made
the material as clear and concise as you feel you can get it (subject to
the law of diminishing returns) if there's still time on the project clock,
then you go back and revisit the decisions you skimped on earlier.
Take care of business first, then take care of yourself. Project is
complete, so you review. You're not comfortable with the level of skill you
applied to such criteria as font selection? *Now* is the time for you to go
rectify that. Only now, *not* while the project clock is ticking.
We do think that time should be taken to improve both
phrasing and form, where and when possible. The two go hand-in-hand.
In fact, it is both what you do and how you do it. Your, and others,
ignorring of the partnership does a disservice to the resulting
document.
It's not an equal partnership. A manual that is 80% of the way to being
accurate is dangerous. One that is 80% of the way to being elegant is still
usable, just clumsy. One that is 100% accurate and 80% elegant is better
than one which is 90% of both. Obviously 100% of both is perfect, but who
has the time to get things perfect?
I'm not discussing accuracy. Accuracy is free.
I'm not discussing elegance. It's immeasurable and elusive.
I avoid percentages since I studied statistics.
Time is the limiting factor. We don't work in a vacuum. We have to do what
we can do within a limited period of time. If you always get all the time
you need on your projects, then obviously you don't have to make decisions
like this. To those of us working in the real world, however, these choices
are made every day, every project.
I've heard that before. Back in the early 80s, writer's wrote. Little more was solicited from the author other than clarification by an editor. Professionals in publishing carried the ball from there. It was their job to present the author's work in its best light. Now, those publishing functions are under your fingertips. That control (and the disappearance of the trade artisans) has transferred responsibility for optimal readability (among others) to you the author. With control goes responsibility. If you are waiting for the writing to be finished before you deal with these things than the problem is task/time allotment.
>When well-done, the text should be invisible.
If I had displayed the same attention to your statements that you and
others have been paying to mine, I would here begin a lengthy digression by
pointing out that invisible text could not be read. But I won't write that
long digression. I believe that what you're getting at is that the style...
I deserved that one. Touche!
applied to the text is not noticed. (And since I seem to get misunderstood
a lot, let me break the flow here to say that the aforementioned style
includes, but is not limited to, kerning, leading, ligatures, margins,
colors, x-height, bowls, counters, line-height and serifs.) And in that
respect, you're right. It's like the referee at a sporting event -- if he
does his job well, he's never noticed.
Precisely.
> If you are aware of the
typographic elements in play, the typographer who composed the
document has failed.
Or you're someone like me, who looks for those kind of things, to see what
I can learn.
So I'm finding out.
s
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Are you using Doc-to-Help or ForeHelp? Switch to RoboHelp for Word for $249
or to RoboHelp Office for only $499. Get the PC Magazine five-star rated
Help authoring tool for less! Go to http://www.ehelp.com/techwr
Free copy of ARTS PDF Tools when you register for the PDF
Conference by April 30. Leading-Edge Practices for Enterprise
& Government, June 3-5, Bethesda,MD. www.PDFConference.com
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
References:
Re: Font Selection Methodology: From: Arlen . P . Walker
Previous by Author:
Re: Font Selection Methodology (apology)
Next by Author:
Re: Font Selection Methodology
Previous by Thread:
Re: Font Selection Methodology (apology)
Next by Thread:
RE: Font Selection Methodology
Search our Technical Writing Archives & Magazine
Visit TechWhirl's Other Sites
Sponsored Ads