Live data from Hacker News

The billionaire’s typewriter

practicaltypography.com

91–97 of 97 posts

Re: The billionaire’s typewriter

#91
post #7

My favorite writing tool of all time is, without a question in my mind, LyX. It manages to find the perfect balance of minimal barriers to productivity, absolute power when I need it, and seriously professional grade results. It's like writing with iAWriter or similar tools, except I still have some basic structural options in the interface, and the end result generated is downright professional grade. I think the "W…

I'm not sure I could even list all the authoring tools I've used, which includes writing a few college papers in nroff. I'd mostly stuck with straight text and graduated to HTML (the lingua franca of the Web) in the late 1990s. I actually got stymied on Lyx with some of its insistence on specific structures for documents and fighting those.

In the past year or two I actually took out my copy of the Lion Book and sorted out what I'd been missing with LaTeX. I realized that a decent set of templates was much of the issue, and now have a basic book and article template that I use for most of my work. And while futzing with specifics of layout can keep you from a final output, it won't stop you from writing. And that's the key problem most of the time.

I've also been exploring Markdown (thanks to reddit, Ello, Diaspora, and numerous other sites which rely on it), and Pandoc, which is nowhere short of amazing and astounding.

More often than I care to admit I'll take content from a website and either reduce it to its HTML core or, with depressing frequency, straight ASCII text, add back some light Markdown, and present it as PDF for reading. Web design has gotten that freaking annoying.

On the Medium discussion -- I find the site pretty good, actually, and disagree with the arguments Butterick raises against its minimalism. Good design is light design, and Medium is among the most minimally re-styled sites I visit. Changes?

    .highlightMenu { display: none; }
    .metabar--affixed { position: static; }
    .metabar--bottom { position: static; }
    .notesMarker { display: none; }
    .postContent { color: black; font-weight: normal; } 
Virtually none, by my standards.

Mind that I don't publish on Medium (at least, not yet). Though I've considered it.

As for "typewriter habits", among the advantages of the typewriter -- as a composing interface -- is that it simplifies input. Tools such as LaTeX then perform the job of transforming typewriter input into typographic output. Most often with very minimal additional directives from the author. Tools such as Markdown reduce that still further.

Two spaces after a full stop? Absolutely. Why? Because in my typography it helps me to distinguish between stops following abbreviations and sentences. Which is a useful thing. Mr. Brown. The first stop terminates an abbreviation. The second an entire sentence. About the only of the conventions that I need to consciously apply is ``quotes'' around quoted passages, though search-and-replace of "straight quotes" is actually pretty easily accomplished with some regex magick. Markdown removes the need entirely.

Re: The billionaire’s typewriter

#92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While they're typically considered gauche, there are typefaces which emulate a broken typewriter. I somewhat like those as well.

Even printed books are uneven. That gives printed books a bit of charm that is lacking in the endlessly perfect digital books. It's like a drum synthesizer, too perfect. If I was designing ebook software, I'd support a rendering that would ever-so-slightly mis-position each letter, and in fact have a dozen incarnations of each letter, all slightly different, and pick one at random each time. I'd also make the backgro…

Printed books can be uneven but they're also fairly limited in what they can present.

Your basic concept is a page full of type. I actually care a lot about footnotes or endnotes (I read a lot of nonfiction), indices, and bibliographies. Books lacking in any or all of these get strong demerits.

It's virtually impossible (and very expensive) for books to present distractions. Static black-and-white or color images are about the limit, pop-ups or fold-outs are possible, and as a novelty, perhaps an electronic gizmo pasted to a page or cover, though I cannot think of a single published book I've got which has such. Some technical books that came with CDROMs, but that's almost a completely passed phase now.

There are aspects which speak to age and printing technology -- the slightly blurred type of most pre-1950s 20th century books, and increasing sharpness of type and copy since (starting up-market). Typeface, though modern and sans-serif faces pretty much always annoy me. Large-print books for seniors. Different styles -- picture, comic, and children's books with lots of illustrations. College and high-school textbooks, increasingly almost useless with their call-outs, images, and other visual gimicks. Flashy, yes, but not all that informative.

Or look at Harry Potter and the animated magic newspapers. If I were to run into that I'd scream -- looks fun for a second on a movie screen. Rage-inducing in real life.

Your eBook suggestion is possible. It's really easy to overdo, and a little bit goes a long way. You're also limited by technology, and would likely find that you're getting noise at two levels -- the pseudo-analog noise (see LaTeX's coffee stain macro: http://hanno-rein.de/archives/349 http://texblog.org/tag/coffee-stain/), plus accumulated digital noise -- bad pixels or damaged e-ink.

Websites which use background images under text virtually always get it removed by me locally using a personal stylesheet manager.

Re: The billionaire’s typewriter

#93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even printed books are uneven. That gives printed books a bit of charm that is lacking in the endlessly perfect digital books. It's like a drum synthesizer, too perfect. If I was designing ebook software, I'd support a rendering that would ever-so-slightly mis-position each letter, and in fact have a dozen incarnations of each letter, all slightly different, and pick one at random each time. I'd also make the backgro…

Printed books can be uneven but they're also fairly limited in what they can present. Your basic concept is a page full of type. I actually care a lot about footnotes or endnotes (I read a lot of nonfiction), indices, and bibliographies. Books lacking in any or all of these get strong demerits. It's virtually impossible (and very expensive) for books to present distractions. Static black-and-white or color images are…

I read both ebooks and scanned pdf files on my Kindle. Interestingly, I've grown to prefer the scanned pdf files, because of the imperfections, not in spite of them.

Note that most people scan at 300 dpi, that doesn't look good, and is uncomfortable to read. 400dpi is much better.

Re: The billionaire’s typewriter

#94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even printed books are uneven. That gives printed books a bit of charm that is lacking in the endlessly perfect digital books. It's like a drum synthesizer, too perfect. If I was designing ebook software, I'd support a rendering that would ever-so-slightly mis-position each letter, and in fact have a dozen incarnations of each letter, all slightly different, and pick one at random each time. I'd also make the backgro…

> If I was designing ebook software, I'd support a rendering that would ever-so-slightly mis-position each letter, and in fact have a dozen incarnations of each letter, all slightly different, and pick one at random each time Sounds like whatever font renderer Mozilla was using on my university's old Solaris workstations. Whenever you'd select text it'd change again. I don't think it was a design feature though.

Heh. I still get that at times....

Re: The billionaire’s typewriter

#95
Isn't a few now of the major websites, just formatting our random output into templates? I'm convinced we're as a race still just as sold on having nice templates in our wordprocessors, only just now for the web, and here's the funny thing, how meanwhile everyone and his dog seems to want to write a new basic, oh so very basic, word processor, for each new website they drum up, the irony of it all is that to me it harkens so much more evocatively of the days of VBA ruling the small biz game, and VBA developer magazines selling code and tool bundles, and boy there was indeed a lot to be made, in that sort of thing... just nowadays we're suppose to all follow this or that ethos or ethic or way of fiddling our formats and pay someone else to curated our invaluable output online, preferably for a fee that does not exclude the possibility to better advertise to us...

Re: The billionaire’s typewriter

#96
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with all 5. My main point is simply that not as many people as you may believe care about owning their content. Truth is it will benefit them more on a shared platform. I have never used Medium, and most likely never will, but I would love a Medium built inside HN. That, I would use.

What do you mean exactly by "Medium built inside HN"? Something for long-form writing that's a part of HN? Or a Medium-like service built by people associated with HN?

I mean have a blogging tool inside HN.

Re: The billionaire’s typewriter

#97
post #82
post #58

"As a writer, the biggest po­ten­tial waste of your time is not ty­pog­ra­phy chores, but Medium it­self. Be­cause in re­turn for that snazzy de­sign, Medium needs you to re­lin­quish con­trol of how your work gets to readers." Amen. Finally, someone has put this simply. The issue here has nothing to do with type. The author does a pretty good job of pointing out why Medium's pandering to design is clearly B.S. — but…

It's a distraction from the fact that they own you. No they don't. They don't own the work you choose to publish through their platform in any way whatsoever. By publishing it there you give them permission to use it[1], but no ownership of it. They have absolutely no claim on you, your future work, your past work, or any benefit you might receive from publishing with them. You can delete a story after you've publish…

They may not own the content, but they do own the traffic and (I think) your reader list.
Post reply on HN