Butterick’s Practical Typography 2º Edition
practicaltypography.com
Butterick’s Practical Typography 2º Edition
1–10 of 54 posts
Re: Butterick’s Practical Typography 2º Edition
#2As a side note the entire book is written in racket which is pretty cool.
Re: Butterick’s Practical Typography 2º Edition
#3The first edition literally changed the way I type and gave me additional paranoid behavior other than kerning awareness, which I already obtained. I kept it as a reference for years until most habits became ingrained.
Attention to non English writers: always ensure what your language’s typography rules requires for every topic. You may find subtle and huge differences!
Re: Butterick’s Practical Typography 2º Edition
#4I have enjoyed perusing this in the past, but when I see the word "typographer" split across two lines as "ty" and "pographer" [1] in the first paragraph of the "Typography in ten minutes" page, [2] it gives me pause. What is the point of having two letters (especially these two, which do not form a morpheme) on the first line?
I find this to impair readability and not to enhance aesthetics in any meaningful way. Is there something I'm missing?
2: https://practicaltypography.com/typography-in-ten-minutes.ht...
Re: Butterick’s Practical Typography 2º Edition
#5I have enjoyed perusing this in the past, but when I see the word "typographer" split across two lines as "ty" and "pographer" [1] in the first paragraph of the "Typography in ten minutes" page, [2] it gives me pause. What is the point of having two letters (especially these two, which do not form a morpheme) on the first line? I find this to impair readability and not to enhance aesthetics in any meaningful way. Is…
> What is the point
That is not a deliberate choice, but an unfortunate artifact of setting the content div to have a maximum width of 652 pixels. If you reduce the width of your browser, the word "better" will be split instead. If you reduce it further, the line wrapping is achieved without splitting any words in that paragraph.
Re: Butterick’s Practical Typography 2º Edition
#6I have enjoyed perusing this in the past, but when I see the word "typographer" split across two lines as "ty" and "pographer" [1] in the first paragraph of the "Typography in ten minutes" page, [2] it gives me pause. What is the point of having two letters (especially these two, which do not form a morpheme) on the first line? I find this to impair readability and not to enhance aesthetics in any meaningful way. Is…
> What is the point That is not a deliberate choice, but an unfortunate artifact of setting the content div to have a maximum width of 652 pixels. If you reduce the width of your browser, the word "better" will be split instead. If you reduce it further, the line wrapping is achieved without splitting any words in that paragraph.
I assumed it was some sort of algorithmic choice to allow hyphenation that leaves only two characters on one line. I would set the threshold for this to be greater than 2, assuming no other 'intelligence' is used. For example, it could be OK in some circumstances, in the case of the word "irredeemable". But even there, I think it would be jarring to see "ir" at the end of a line, and I would rather just have the whole word on the next line.
But then I'm a crazy fellow who thinks that this [1] is a good idea for enhancing readability.
1: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/beeline-reader/ifj...
Re: Butterick’s Practical Typography 2º Edition
#7I have enjoyed perusing this in the past, but when I see the word "typographer" split across two lines as "ty" and "pographer" [1] in the first paragraph of the "Typography in ten minutes" page, [2] it gives me pause. What is the point of having two letters (especially these two, which do not form a morpheme) on the first line? I find this to impair readability and not to enhance aesthetics in any meaningful way. Is…
This seems like browser behaviour not an author choice. It happens for me in Safari but not in Firefox or Chrome. Looking at the DOM, it’s just the whole word, no Unicode characters or CSS that would do this.
Re: Butterick’s Practical Typography 2º Edition
#8I have enjoyed perusing this in the past, but when I see the word "typographer" split across two lines as "ty" and "pographer" [1] in the first paragraph of the "Typography in ten minutes" page, [2] it gives me pause. What is the point of having two letters (especially these two, which do not form a morpheme) on the first line? I find this to impair readability and not to enhance aesthetics in any meaningful way. Is…
This seems like browser behaviour not an author choice. It happens for me in Safari but not in Firefox or Chrome. Looking at the DOM, it’s just the whole word, no Unicode characters or CSS that would do this.
The words in the text have soft hyphens[1] that allow word breaking.
Re: Butterick’s Practical Typography 2º Edition
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems like browser behaviour not an author choice. It happens for me in Safari but not in Firefox or Chrome. Looking at the DOM, it’s just the whole word, no Unicode characters or CSS that would do this.
The words in the text have soft hyphens[1] that allow word breaking. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_hyphen
You’re right. Wow, that’s annoying – when you copy and paste the value from developer tools in Safari it strips those characters, so you only get the printable characters.
Re: Butterick’s Practical Typography 2º Edition
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What is the point That is not a deliberate choice, but an unfortunate artifact of setting the content div to have a maximum width of 652 pixels. If you reduce the width of your browser, the word "better" will be split instead. If you reduce it further, the line wrapping is achieved without splitting any words in that paragraph.
I assumed it was some sort of algorithmic choice to allow hyphenation that leaves only two characters on one line. I would set the threshold for this to be greater than 2, assuming no other 'intelligence' is used. For example, it could be OK in some circumstances, in the case of the word "irredeemable". But even there, I think it would be jarring to see "ir" at the end of a line, and I would rather just have the whol…
He has written and uses (at least for the last edition) a Racket library / language for this book that also automatically adds unicode soft hyphens where appropriate in words, so I assume this is one of them