Dean - Line Spacing

Dean - Line Spacing — Thu, 18 May 2006 06:26:39 GMT

PingBack from http://www.codeka.com/blogs/index.php/dean/2006/05/18/line_spacing

re: More on Linespacing

John Hudson — Thu, 18 May 2006 09:06:32 GMT

It doesn't surprise me that the desirability of increased linespacing for longer line lengths is not reflected in reading speed tests. But there are both aesthetic and functional grounds for this practice. Aesthetically it makes the text look less cramped and better balanced. Functionally, I believe this openness makes it easier to scan the text, locate specific words, etc. -- what might be termed 'text entry operations' -- which are important ways in which we engage with documents other than reading them through from start to finish.

re: More on Linespacing

Will Robertson — Thu, 18 May 2006 11:00:06 GMT

Hi,

Great post, love those numbers. I hadn't seen the actual results of such studies before.

To get a better feel for what the numbers were actually saying, I put together a PDF document showing each of the layouts used in the study. It's gratifying to find that the layouts with poor-reading speeds do look uglier!

I've made the PDF available here, with some further comments:
<http://willwont.blogspot.com/2006/05/linewidth-vs-linespacing-examples.html>

Thanks!

re: More on Linespacing

Will Robertson — Fri, 19 May 2006 01:39:14 GMT

The commenting system encoded that closing > as part of the URL above. Oops. Just delete the "%3E" to get to the right place.

re: More on Linespacing

Kevin Larson — Sat, 20 May 2006 19:21:01 GMT

John, I agree that more leading improves the aesthetics of longer lines. I expected a closer match between aesthetics and reading performance.

Thanks for the visualization Will!

re: More on Linespacing

SirPavlova — Sat, 27 May 2006 15:40:26 GMT

Any chance that we could see some comparative data between the 8, 10, & 12 pt sizes mentioned? I'd be interested to see which is optimal, & by how much.

re: More on Linespacing

Thomas Phinney — Sun, 28 May 2006 01:33:19 GMT

Urm, I hate to point this out, but on average, Word's "single spacing" already has the equivalent of 20% leading. It is not the same as being set solid.

Worse, Word's single and multiple spacing is simply not based the point size alone, but is based in part on the font bounding box. It has very little to do with the kinds of measurements Tinker was doing.

I'll post a more detailed explanation on my blog later today, with pictures and commentary.

re: More on Linespacing

ReallyEvilCanine — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:51:12 GMT

I was a typesetter some 20 years ago (electronic and Linotype) and 1.2 was almost always the specified spacing. Normal text sizes were 10/12 (10pt type, 12pt leading) and 12/14. this study only confirms what a lot of us already knew.

However, I'm with Thomas (fix your URL!) concerning Word's dependence on the bounding box, though this is really more the fault of the type designer than the OS.

portrait orientation

james kreines — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 17:53:49 GMT

Sorry for the off topic comment, but I was still hoping that fontblog might go into more detail abotu whether there is a way to get cleartype to work with displays oriented in portrait mode. There is conflicting info out there on the web. I asked about it in response to this post:

http://blogs.msdn.com/fontblog/archive/2005/12/13/503236.aspx

Kevin Larson then said in his response that Greg was going to go into some fascinating detail in response, but I never saw anything more from Kevin or Greg on this. Is there any worthwhile source for more information?

thanks!

re: More on Linespacing

David Hergert — Sat, 22 Jul 2006 07:48:45 GMT

Why have the posts stopped? Whats going on?

Only 120%?

Ben Darlow — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:32:35 GMT

I'm surprised that the recommendation only calls for a 120% type size linespacing. I've been using larger linespacing settings than this for some time in web content I publish using CSS (sadly IE6 doesn't support the line-height attribute, but IE7 will remedy this). For a type size of 11px I'll typically use 16px or even 18px as the line-height value. I'd say 120% is still way too cramped. I'll have to check later, but I'm pretty sure Robert Bringhurst recommends a far larger linespacing value in 'Elements of Typographic Style'.

The IE8 Smart Address Bar Part 1: Navigate Easier and Faster

IEBlog — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 04:48:55 GMT

For Beta 1, we discussed some of the technical improvements (like domain highlighting, multi-line paste,

IE8 Beta 2: изменения в Smart Address Bar (часть 1)

Блог команды разработчиков Internet Explorer 8 — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 07:40:27 GMT

Ранее мы уже обсуждали некоторые из технических усовершенствований (выделение имени домена, многострочная

Double Line Spacing Default in Word 2007 - Page 2 | keyongtech

Double Line Spacing Default in Word 2007 - Page 2 | keyongtech — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:17:35 GMT

PingBack from http://www.keyongtech.com/1468761-double-line-spacing-default-in/2

리거니의 생각

dykin's me2DAY — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:39:18 GMT

fontblog : More on Linespacing

Internet Explorer 8 스마트 주소 표시줄 Part 1 : 쉽고 빠른 안내

IE8 팀 블로그 — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:10:05 GMT

  Internet Explorer 8 Beta 1에서 주소 표시줄에 대해서 실시한 몇가지  기술적인 안내 (도메인 하이라이트 기능, 여러 행 붙이기 기능, 클릭

Typefacts | Zeilenabstand

Typefacts | Zeilenabstand — Thu, 28 May 2009 10:17:06 GMT

PingBack from http://typefacts.com/artikel/grundlagen/zeilenabstand