[Date Prev][Date Next][Subject Prev][Subject Next][ Date Index][ Subject Index]

Re: extra space after period

As for why it happened, I suspect that it was the inability of a
computer algorithm to distinguish between a sentence-ending period and
one after an abbreviation (as we have seen here in the thread about
automatic uppercasing) that caused the extra space to go by the boards
when type began to be set by algorithms.
I asked Kathleen Tinkel to comment on this issue; her response, which
highlights the industrial imperative for loose spacing against the
aesthetic imperative for tight spacing, and the dichotomy between
typographic folk and the rest of humanity, follows:

There are very few early writings on usage, and those tend to focus on the
practical and economical (i.e., efficiency) issues of composition --
having enough space in the case for various sizes of spaces, for example,
or placing the spaces as close to the compositor's hand as the alpha
characters.

You can infer spacing practice by looking at old books (look at examples
in Updike, for example). But even the best philosophers on typography
often present their arguments in type that has been set indifferently.
It's harder to do than to say.

There are snippets in Moxon (1683), Fournier (1763) (both translated and
annotated by Harry Carter). The next I know of was C.T. Jacobi in 1890,
and De Vinne (1900-ish). Then we begin to hear from the 20th-century
reformers, including Jan Tschichold.

Typographic practice also varied by locale (still does). Mostly it seems
to have to do with money in what was a horrifically labor-intensive
process. Loose and nasty type made good sense -- not only could the
compositor save a little time by using wider word spaces in general (Moxon
reported 1/4-em average word spaces, ranging from 1/7 up to no more than
an en; but by the 19th century, the average has gone up to 1/3 and even an
en space, ranging from 1/4 and up to an em after periods), but it made for
fewer problems if changes called for replacing a word or phrase (room to
tighten, less need to rework multiple lines).

Oddly, the texts keep advising use of a 'thick' for word spacing, but the
definition of 'thick' as well as 'thin,' 'mid,' and so on was altered.
Only the em and en were stable.

The 20th-century reformers had the luxury of machine-set type so they
could argue for tighter spacing like what they were seeing in the type
specimens they were researching as they sought inspiration for designs for
the new machines.

The best printed discussion of this topic is in Geoffrey Dowding's Finer
Points in the Spacing & Arrangement of Type (1966). He quotes many
sources, including Sir Emery Walker: "The compositor's thick space boxes
should be filled instead with thin."

But she doesn't seem to argue the fact that spacing widened over the
centuries -- she seems to say that it only narrowed again in 1960 or so.
That isn't really wrong, if she accepts only non-typographic authorities
(which includes the Chicago Manual and Words Into Type).

In fact, the little we do get to read on this topic through the centuries
often refers to setting periods after abbreviations and initials *tighter*
than after sentences. This is usually in a general discussion of visual
spacing, adapting to the shapes of letters, and so on. The consummate
discussion of this issue of sensitivity in typography is probably Jost
Hochuli's little book Detail in Typography: Letters, letter-spacing,
words, word-spacing, lines, line-spacing, columns. Hochuli says all
spacing begins with the letterforms. This includes sidebearings and
kerning adjustments as well as word and line spacing. Makes good sense to me.

Does any of that help? You two occupy parallel universes, so it's hard to
argue. There were plenty example of awful type in the 1960s. Still are. So?