![]() ![]() The result is a chaos of varying line lengths, mostly wrong.Ĥ columns of 20pt font looks idiotic and is hard to read: The number of columns ranges from 4 (with a large font, natch, for lines that contain anywhere between 1 and 2 words each) to a single column (at least once with his smallest font size). ![]() The fluctuating font sizes are but one of several problems.Ĭhris uses centered text, ragged right text, and fully justified text seemingly at random. I half believe that Chris sometimes simply enbiggened a chunk of text until it filled up the space on the page he'd allocated for it, in preference to the rather more laborious task of re-doing the layout. It is worth noting that Chris did pull a proof and did not make his text flows even reasonably functional. I, at any rate, have not mastered the trick of visualizing what it will really look like from the screen. What looks ridiculously cramped and tiny on screen is loose and clumsy on the page. There is no way to know you've got it right without pulling a physical proof, as far as I can tell. With decent printing (which mostly everything is these days), you can really cram the material in there as long as you're attentive to the overall balance of the page from micro to macro scales, and use good legible fonts. We also tend to overlead, placing too much space between the lines. I have made a mental note to drop down to 12 point font in future. My most recent blurb books use 14 point fonts, and I started out quite a bit larger. ![]() This is a genuinely excellent note to hit for a magazine like this, where the topic is contemporary use of classical materials.Ĭomputer people, including me, tend to use fonts that are much too big when we go to print. The lack of serifs and the overall modern look speak to a contemporary world, while the classical elements bridge the gap to the older world. The descenders on the lowercase f, the weird but almost two-story g, as well as the heavy use of ligatures, does produce a touch of a classical feel. On one front the choice was good, however. Note also the weirdly lowered dollar sign, and imagine it, if you will, placed next to one of the quite tall and upwardly-weighted digits (as dollar signs occasionally are). There are probably good uses for it, but running text is not one of them. This is not a font for reading, this is a font for looking cool. In some sizes, especially italics, the type also comes out rather cramped. When your content includes the words photo, photography, shot, shoot, and shooting as much as this material does, that's a lot of blotches. When used in running text, the connecting bar from o to t creates the illusion of an r crammed in there, "ort." This reads slightly heavy so that every time the ligature appears there is a kind of illusion of a dark spot, a blotch. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |