Live data from Hacker News

Butterick’s Practical Typography 2º Edition

practicaltypography.com

41–50 of 54 posts

Re: Butterick’s Practical Typography 2º Edition

#41
post #40

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.

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm only realizing now that uBlock Origin is doing this. But I still think the site should be viewable even with webfonts (and JS) disabled.

Re: Butterick’s Practical Typography 2º Edition

#42

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

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.

[deleted]

Re: Butterick’s Practical Typography 2º Edition

#43
This 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 coloured blue or some other distinctive colour. And even if you tap on a completely blank part of the page (such as to clear a selection), there is apparently some hidden link that brings you to a random page. I can't figure it out.

In 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

#44
post #24

I 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…

Oh, I agree. It is all what you say it is. I would add boring and bland.

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

#45
post #28

It 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 :)

Weird. I'm more-or-less sure about Valkyrie being the past default. At one point I discovered with dismay that Century Supra was used instead, for me. But now, I even checked in a private window before posting the above comment, and it was Valkyrie again.

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

#47
post #13

Earlier 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?

TeX's default language (US English) uses the hyphenation patterns from a certain American dictionary (Liang's thesis mentions Webster’s Third New International Dictionary; probably that's the one). American hyphenation tradition tends (there are cases where different American dictionaries don't agree), more often than British, to hyphenate at phonological boundaries. (This has some interesting corollaries: the word “record” is hyphenated “re-cord” as a verb and “rec-ord” as a noun.)

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

#48
post #23
post #21

Earlier 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?

Yes, with different patterns it's possible and the en-gb patterns do this (see https://www.tug.org/tex-hyphen/). Morpheme-aware hyphenation does have some oddities, though, like hyphenating helicopter as helico-pter.

Re: Butterick’s Practical Typography 2º Edition

#49
post #21

Earlier 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…

One of my minor claims to fame is contributing the word Wertherian to the hyphanation exception list. I only knew it was an issue because I saw it mis-hyphenated in a Trollope novel.

Re: Butterick’s Practical Typography 2º Edition

#50

This 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…

i don't know; i was inclined to agree just out of a knee-jerk "don't break standards" reflex, but it's a deliberate decision for which he makes a very compelling point:

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

Post reply on HN