81–90 of 206 posts
Please ban letter size, ever been at the printer realsing nothing printed and facing PC Load letter message? Ever been in a foreign country trying to find your home countries legal size of paper in a local store? I think we should switch to metric, a4 paper and right hand driving.
I've tried in the past to explain how awesome the sqrt(2) ratio used as the basis of DIN/ISO page sizes is, but there are some very dumb people on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7821947
They are more or less agreeing with you that convenient scaling is a feature. They just use a bad analogy, and you talk past each other a lot. (I agree that they miss the point that you aren't promoting metric)
Next step: metric measurement units everywhere. I've been waiting for that for decades. If "dozens" would die as well, even better.
You can even count using your fingers. Just count using your thumb pointing at each of the finger joints and the finger tip (you have two joints and one tip per finger and four fingers excluding the thumb). Actually, that's how Egyptians counted and that's why you get 12 hours in the realm of day and 12 hours in the realm of night.
The only drawback is multiplication tables. If I tend to forget the multiplication table for 7 and 8, memorizing tables for 11 and 12 would be nightmarish :-)
P.S. This is obviously tongue-in-cheek. While it may be marginally better, switching costs mean the optimal course of action is to stay at the local maximum and avoid switching.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are more or less agreeing with you that convenient scaling is a feature. They just use a bad analogy, and you talk past each other a lot. (I agree that they miss the point that you aren't promoting metric)
Yes. talideon wrote two unrelated sentences next to each other, Turing_Machine thought they were related, and the two of them started talking about different things. (This is my impression, at least. I can't seem to bring myself to properly read the whole thread, it's too frustrating.) talideon, you do not come across well from that exchange. You may or may not have been talking to a brick wall, but you weren't liste…
> _The units are irrelevant._ That's what you're not getting. What is relevant is that the same page width/height ratio is maintained between the different page sizes.
When I was younger, I would've had more patience with this kind of thing; but as I get older, it becomes less and less worth my time and energy.
The issues that come up with regard to US Letter size paper seem to be:
1) It's not metric -- yes that's true, but A4 is 210mm x 297mm. These numbers seem completely arbitrary and don't take advantage of the metric system. I wish the US was on the metric system, but it's not so 8.5 in by 11 inches at least has the advantage that it is measured in simple numbers with respect to standard measures in the US.
2) It's easier to store and work with A4 because it is one half of an A3 sheet -- however, US Letter is one half of the US Tabloid/Ledger size. The ANSI (American National Standards Institute) paper sizes in inches are A (8.5 x 11), B (11 x 17), C (17 x 22), D (22 x 34), etc. and share this advantage with the ISO standard.
3) The aspect ratio is is approximately sqrt(2)/2 for all paper in the A series, the B series, and the C series. But why is having but one shape of paper an advantage? Sometimes it's useful to have choices depending on the content to be printed on the paper. Furthermore, the ANSI paper sizes simply have two aspect ratios alternating as one increases paper size.
It is argued that printing posters with corresponding flyers is easier with ISO paper sizes. But this is true with ANSI paper sizes: one would have to jump up two sizes from letter (ANSI A, 8.5 x 11 inches) to ANSI C (17 x 22 inches). So, for the case where one would like to print at ANSI B, the aspect ratio of the page is a bit different. Here we have, what appears to me, to be the first real advantage of ISO over ANSI paper, where we need to print a flyer at A4 and A5 (but not A6). However, this hasn't been a problem for me personally. I'm usually working with pages that have additional constraints. For example space for bindings or differences in margins between recto and verso sides of two sided printing. Whenever there are bindings involved the aspect ratio advantage goes out the window.
4) Every country uses ISO sizes, why not the US (and Canada and Mexico) -- well, this is oversimplifying things a bit. Take a look at the Wikipedia page for paper sizes. There are Japanese variants, German extensions, and Swedish extensions listed that deviate from the ISO standards. There are also Architectural sizes listed that are designed to have simple ratios for their aspect ratios.
The idea that we would somehow be better off with fewer choices (just one) really for aspect ratio really strikes me as wrong. I like all the variety available in paper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel your pain. The tough part is realising how pointless those "someone is wrong on the internet"[1] discussions are. I get embarrassed looking back at situations like that, and think "why did I even care if this random person didn't get what I was saying about ?" [1] http://xkcd.com/386/
Oh, I agree. I was as dumb as him for participating in it. If I'd any sense, I'd never have engaged with him after it became clear that he was fixated on something completely separate from the actual point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is: An A5 booklet on A4 is the same as A4 booklet on A3, etc.
No its not. In fact its completely unrelated because when making book you should care for aspects like font size and text body layout which follow an ergonomic perspective. E.g. the same booklet layout on a3 wouldn't work at all because the font would be huge. Keep the font size small and you have really long lines...
This is one of those things that seems technically correct (the best kind of correct) but practically ... meh. The benefit exists but is barely enough to get anyone entrenched to actually change. Much like the common usage of the US Customary units, nothing is going to actually change.
It has other useful effects: it makes it easier to standardise containers for the sheets, as well as their division, amongst other things. And all this from the simple use of a ratio.
The efficiency gained wouldn't come near to the efficiency lost during the switch, and nobody really cares all that much about paper size.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you a bookmaker? The are the ones with the problems. ;) > I have seen lots and lots of A4 books And they all have suboptimal layouts.
> And they all have suboptimal layouts. (my emphasis) My question would be - would you be willing to ascribe that to taste?
Why did Americans simplify and streamline the English Language, but they didn't bother with all of the systems of measurement?
Throw in massive immigration and indigenous languages within and along its borders rather than overseas and American English simply adapted to more varied use.