The World's Greatest Book

This arti­cle explains the tab ruler found on every word proces­sor and type­set­ting appli­ca­tion. Understanding the sim­ple and ele­gant split ruler and tab func­tions opens up a world of for­mat­ting opportunities.

Digital type­set­ting and word pro­cess­ing inher­ited a num­ber of out­dated con­ven­tions from the type­writer. When pro­duc­ing a para­graph indent on a type­writer, it makes no dif­fer­ence whether you hit the tab key or type a few con­sec­u­tive spaces, but on a word proces­sor, those approaches cre­ate prob­lems as your man­u­script moves from edit­ing to final page lay­out. Though the “two spaces after a period” con­ven­tion was not descended from the type­writer as is pop­u­larly thought, con­sec­u­tive spaces are gen­er­ally con­sid­ered bad prac­tice in the dig­i­tal world. And though a half-inch para­graph indent (along with dou­ble line spac­ing) is per­fectly suit­able for man­u­script work, the typesetter’s con­ven­tion has long been to use an indent of one em (the width of a let­ter “m” in the ana­log world. In the dig­i­tal world, the con­ven­tion is to use the point size of the type­face, so if you’re set­ting 12-point type, your indent would be 12/72-inches or 1/6-inch). And yet, the old habit of repeat­edly ham­mer­ing the space bar to posi­tion ele­ments on the page persists—even to a point where cen­tered ele­ments are some­times left-aligned text pre­ceded by dozens of spaces. Continue read­ing →

Digi­tal typog­ra­phy offers capa­bil­i­ties that print­ers work­ing with hot lead type and wood type could only dream of. Digital type can be stretched and resized infi­nitely, jus­ti­fied within unusual bound­aries, or wrapped around almost any shape. And yet, tra­di­tional let­ter­press and wood type spe­cialty shops con­tinue to marry ink and paper. Their work offers a spe­cial, organic warmth that dig­i­tal type lacks. This arti­cle explores the dif­fer­ences between dig­i­tal and tra­di­tional type, and sug­gests tech­niques for sim­u­lat­ing the appear­ance of tra­di­tional print. Though it ulti­mately fails to reveal a magic for­mula for turn­ing pix­els into authen­tic printer’s ink, it offers insights into why that goal is so dif­fi­cult to achieve.

The best source for his­tor­i­cal infor­ma­tion is old books. Reading about tra­di­tional typog­ra­phy is nowhere near as valu­able as look­ing at it. Observe the inter­ac­tion between ink, paper, and time. I find old design books on eBay that typ­i­cally cost half of what con­tem­po­rary books do. My col­lec­tion goes back to the 1830s. Two of my favorites: The Art & Practice of Typography by Edmund Gress, (1917), and The Manual of Linotype Typography by William Dana Orcutt and Edward Bartlett (1923) are avail­able for online view­ing (click their titles in this sen­tence). These books offer insights into evolv­ing lan­guage as much as they do into evolv­ing typog­ra­phy. Above all, they inspire one ques­tion: Why doesn’t my type look like that?

Continue read­ing →