Earlier quoted context omitted.
A fellow Firefox user? I was wondering the same thing. Then it hit me: maybe it's just yet another one of those sites that assume all browsers in the world are Chromium and that's why the layout is garbled up for me. This is what it looks like with Chromium on my end: https://i.imgur.com/36Lacgd.png
Firefox user, no problem here. The OP screenshot has different fonts that the page sets, so looks like both of you have web fonts disabled.
Butterick’s Practical Typography 2º Edition
41–50 of 54 posts
Re: Butterick’s Practical Typography 2º Edition
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
A fellow Firefox user? I was wondering the same thing. Then it hit me: maybe it's just yet another one of those sites that assume all browsers in the world are Chromium and that's why the layout is garbled up for me. This is what it looks like with Chromium on my end: https://i.imgur.com/36Lacgd.png
Looks fine for me in Firefox. However it's just a blank page until I enable Javascript. So I'm not all that interested to begin with.
Re: Butterick’s Practical Typography 2º Edition
#43In general, I find the website hard to use. Even though a lot of his typographic advice is sound, the UX is just bad and not suitable for a website.
Re: Butterick’s Practical Typography 2º Edition
#44I think Matthew is doing great work. I have a lotmof respect for what he does and how he goes about it. I find that many things he says are good ways to make pleasant to read (and legible) documents. But: Please do use Arial. I find it better than about 95% of the choices done by "people that care about typography". Or even better, let other people that care about how their web experience looks chose for themselves.…
Adopting Arial is at the intersection of several classes of bad web font choices: - random, because it ended up being the browser's default sans serif; - someone not really interested in typography went through their available fonts, i.e. system fonts and a few random ones, in alphabetical order and "A" offered enough choices for them; - "Arial" is a short simple word, and someone was too lazy to check or remember ot…
Still more legible than the weird-ass Baskerville-geometric chimaera of a website I have open in another tab (which I won't name since I do like the guy).
Re: Butterick’s Practical Typography 2º Edition
#45It seems Valkyrie is again the default font, which is great. With it, the site is the most beautiful thing on the whole web, every interval and spacing on it being just right—or at least having been so in the first edition, as I'm not yet seeing what's different now. I'm repeatedly consumed with envy at the author, not so far able to achieve such perfection myself.
Actually, the site is set in Equity, but there is an option at the bottom to set it to Valkyrie :)
Perhaps the font is selected quasi-randomly depending on the visitor's ip. Anyway, I stand by the word that Valkyrie is the best for the site.
(Also the mobile version seems to have lost the font switcher, so there's a chance readers on their phones don't and can't get the Valkyrie experience.)
Re: Butterick’s Practical Typography 2º Edition
#46Re: Butterick’s Practical Typography 2º Edition
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the (a) way that TeX would hyphenate it: $ tex This is TeX, Version 3.14159265 (TeX Live 2016) (preloaded format=tex) **\relax *\showhyphens{typographer} Underfull \hbox (badness 10000) detected at line 0 [] \tenrm ty-pog-ra-pher
Thanks, that’s interesting! So it breaks all of the morphemes? I’d prefer typo-grapher or typograph-er to the above options. I wonder if people who are more or less visual would have different preferences. I’m visual, so perhaps I optimize for the visual appearance of morphemes as opposed to the syllable breaks?
British English tradition tends (more often than American) to hyphenate at morphological/etymological boundaries. For instance, if you run xetex with `\uselanguage{ukenglish}` followed by `\showhyphens{typographer}` then you get:
ty-po-grapher
meaning that in the word “typographer”, a hyphen is allowed in those two places, instead of ty-pog-ra-pher
in the US English version. (Both the US English and UK English hyphenation patterns set \lefthyphenmin=2 and \righthyphenmin=3, i.e. enforce at least two letters before a hyphenation point and at least three after.)So the hyphenation patterns have done the “right” thing in the US case, in the sense that they produced the same hyphenation as given in US dictionaries: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/typographer https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=typographer = https://www.thefreedictionary.com/typographer https://www.wordsmyth.net/?ent=typographer https://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/typographer (I don't have access to any UK English dictionary that shows hyphenation, as far as I can tell, but I imagine it's doing the right thing for the UK case too.)
You can see more at https://www.tug.org/tex-hyphen/ and in particular Liang's thesis https://www.tug.org/docs/liang/ is very readable (both the English and CS/data-structure parts).
Re: Butterick’s Practical Typography 2º Edition
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So it breaks all of the morphemes? Not really. TeX uses Knuth-Liang algorithm which does not do any morphological or semantical analysis. You basically feed it a corpus of words, it learns substrings that contain word breaks more often, condenses this information, and uses that to guess where an arbitrary word could be hyphenated. In particular, TeX's hyphenation data contains lines y3po 5po4g which strongly sugges…
Is there a morpheme-aware version?
Re: Butterick’s Practical Typography 2º Edition
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks, that’s interesting! So it breaks all of the morphemes? I’d prefer typo-grapher or typograph-er to the above options. I wonder if people who are more or less visual would have different preferences. I’m visual, so perhaps I optimize for the visual appearance of morphemes as opposed to the syllable breaks?
> So it breaks all of the morphemes? Not really. TeX uses Knuth-Liang algorithm which does not do any morphological or semantical analysis. You basically feed it a corpus of words, it learns substrings that contain word breaks more often, condenses this information, and uses that to guess where an arbitrary word could be hyphenated. In particular, TeX's hyphenation data contains lines y3po 5po4g which strongly sugges…
Re: Butterick’s Practical Typography 2º Edition
#50This website has terrible styling of anchors, and I accidentally clicked a link over a dozen times while reading just one page, on my touch screen phone. Why? Because they're completely invisible. There is no indication whatsoever that some particular text is a link, apart from a faint degree symbol (what?) at the end of the sentence. Please, don't re-invent the wheel: links should be under-lined, or at least coloure…
Vigorously styled hyperlinks on a page tend to move to the foreground of a reader’s attention, like an HDTV in a hotel bar. (See also maxims of page layout.) The red circle is meant to be noticeable while you’re reading the sentence that contains the link. Otherwise it disappears, so as not to distract.
edit: though having internal links be completely invisible until you hover on them is a startlingly bad design decision