Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paper sizes

royvanrijn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 206 posts

Re: Paper sizes

#121

Post by talideon »

philh wrote: post #98
talideon wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, I repeated told him that the units didn't matter, and that it was the ratio that mattered. Other than disengaging sooner (which I would've done if I'd any cop-on myself), what could I have said differently? I'm truly at a loss. I straight-up wrote this: > _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…

You shouldn't have said "You appear not to understand the actual utility behind the page width/height ratio used in ISO/DIN page sizes." Turing_Machine wasn't talking about utility at that point. Ve had misunderstood something confusing that you had said, and you basically straight up said "you're dumb".

That was only after he came up with the fluid measurement analogy, which made _no_ sense at all. I'd written this:

> The 1:sqrt(2) ratio used is extremely convenient as it scales up and down nicely

Then he wrote this:

> How are factors of 2 and sqrt(2) "based on metric"? At some level you could say that the U.S. measurements are "based on metric" since almost all of them are defined in terms of metric units. You just have to apply the proper factor (which is a decimal, but a terminating one --- unlike the sqrt(2) business).

(Emphasis mine.)

That is where the "You appear not to understand the actual utility behind the page width/height ratio used in ISO/DIN page sizes." comment came from. I wasn't calling him dumb. I hadn't flipped the bozo bit on him at that point, though I had by the time I wrote "Ok. I'll be super explicit about this." later on.

Re: Paper sizes

#123

Post by kaybe »

peapicker wrote: post #117

I personally want Japanese B5 notepads -- they are the perfect dimensions. I ran out a long time ago, and they are hard to come by in the US.

If you really want to have it, you can order directly from Japan. You can use a reshipping service like http://honto.jp/ and have the company you buy from ship to them if they don't ship internationally. They also help you order things if you don't know the language.

Then it just comes down to the import rules of the US (seems like you're fine with anything below 200$ of value, but I'm not sure [1]).

Yes, it's a bit cumbersome, but in this glorious age of the internet there should be nothing (legal) that cannot be procured.

[1] https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/501/kw/post/sno...

Re: Paper sizes

#124

Post by SonicSoul »

peapicker wrote: post #117

I personally want Japanese B5 notepads -- they are the perfect dimensions. I ran out a long time ago, and they are hard to come by in the US.

thanks! Just ordered a few of those from jetpens. Size/quality looks very promising

Re: Paper sizes

#125

Post by glitch »

glitch wrote: post #9

I really wish we'd switch to the ISO-216 sizes. A4 to A3 is so much more enjoyable and painless than Letter to Tabloid. This kind of thing came up often while making posters for campus because it was cheaper to NOT print out all of the posters on Tabloid. Rather, using a mix of Tabloid (for the important poster posting spots) and Letter (for unimportant spots and as flyers for handout). Always ended up having to spen…

Additional note: Yes, I realize 17"x22" (ANSI C) is a thing. But, that paper wasn't readily available in the specific scenario given. The point is that if all common-use paper has the same proportion, then availability of needing "this or that certain proportion" is less of an issue... or rather becomes a non-issue. When all commonly used paper has the same proportion, then the possibility for the inconsistent proportion problem occurring in every-day life essentially goes away.

Re: Paper sizes

#126

Post by jschwartzi »

skore wrote: post #38
talideon wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was like talking to a brick wall. A very dumb brick wall that couldn't get it through their head that the units didn't matter, and that what mattered was the ratio.

> It was like talking to a brick wall. I know those types of conversations. They stay with you for months and sometimes years, never ceasing to irritate.

Sometimes the irritating part is when you realize that you're the brick wall.

Re: Paper sizes

#127

Post by jessaustin »

transfire wrote: post #107
sergiosgc wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counting in base 12 is much better than base 10. 12 has prime factors {2,2,3}, so you get 2,3,4 and 6 as integer divisors, not just 2 and 5. That's why dozens stuck as a counting unit on so many things, namely time (all the way back from Egyptians). 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 an…

I've done some extensive analysis of number systems (almost enough to write a book on the subject) and come to the conclusion that the best are senary (6) and quaternary (4). Six has all the benefits of twelve, save the extra divisor of 2 (and thus 4), but that is easily remedied by use of the square (36) when required. Quaternary may seem an odd choice, but the square is 16, so one naturally learns hexadecimal witho…

Since you haven't written your book yet, are there any others you can recommend on this topic?

Re: Paper sizes

#128

Post by MrDosu »

mrottenkolber wrote: post #89
skore wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And they all have suboptimal layouts. (my emphasis) My question would be - would you be willing to ascribe that to taste?

No. Try to layout a document on A4 while maintaining at least basic standard rules (e.g. lines of 8-12 words, a pretty text body layout, e.g. a "nice ratio" like 3/4 or 1/2, with standard margins, that is 1 on top, left and right and 2 on bottom). Since your font size will either be 11 or 12 pt on A4 because otherwise you use less than half of the paper or your font is really huge, you're not left with many options.

All of this is voodoo that you learned working with your preferred aspect ratio and size. None of these rules have any kind of objective basis.

Re: Paper sizes

#129

Post by willvarfar »

azth wrote: post #120
mpweiher wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You write that the A4 numbers "seem completely arbitrary". While they might seem to be arbitrary, they are obviously not the least bit arbitrary. The base size A0 has an area of exactly 1 square meter. Each subsequent size is constructed by taking half of the previous, so for A4 it's 1/16th of a square meter, or 0.0625 sqare meters, 625 square centimeters, which is 21.0 cm x 27.9 cm (approximately). In order to have…

> The base size A0 has an area of exactly 1 square meter. Which is still arbitrary :)

No, its the basis of paper weights too, which are measured in grams/m^2

Re: Paper sizes

#130

Post by talideon »

colechristensen wrote: post #88
talideon wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's just a threshold of utility that has to be passed in order for a new standard to take hold. How much would the US really benefit from switching? How much would switching cost? The efficiency gained wouldn't come near to the efficiency lost during the switch, and nobody really cares all that much about paper size.

I'm not making the argument that the US should switch (though I wish they would), I'm just stating that the advantages are deeper than they appear at first blush.
Post reply on HN