Australopithicus

Special Note for Old Bruce: As a long experienced typographer, you will hopefully remember the name of the publication used by English typesetters and proofreaders as a THE style manual. Author was Horace someone or other I think. We still need that resource in my opinion. I find the Aus Govt Style Manual OK in general but the more revisions that are made the greater the use of US English style. I have adopted the Guardian and Observer style Guide if only it is more easily navigated than its Aus counterpart.

Boy! - that’s a useful debate. I very much appreciate your explanation and approach Old Bruce. I too started with hand-set monotype as a student designer, not a typesetter. First choose your font, then determine your set width! (Hence character style before para style). The College embraced the printing trades and typesetting in those days. I will never forget the steamy, heavy atmosphere in the College basement where slugs of lead were suspended from the ceiling on chains and were continually lowered into the melting pot reservoir to feed the Linotype machines. Minimal health and safety there mate - safety depended on the discipline of correct procedure! On my part all this Para/Character confusion was created by the import of a Word setting over which I had no control. Once imported it established the NoStyle settings and my settings clearly did not completely override the import. Of course I can see the imported settings by clicking on NoStyle, but many space instructions in the imported file are invisible. Having failed to fix the setting via the hierarchy of Styles, rather than try to fathom the interaction between Para/Character/NoStyle, I figured substitute my settings on NoStyle to get rid of the imported specs. This has worked and I can now recognise the value of the contributions you folks have made above. I can confidently create new styles free of the glitches previously encountered. The essence of my misconception was that a Para Style replaced a pre-existing para style. In fact it builds upon the pre-existing para style. My tinkering made the instructions more complex and the APub spat the dummy! Changing the pre-existing NoStyle solved the problem. Heaven knows what APub had imported from the Word document. Probably a ham sandwich or a Wimpyburger! To answer Old Bruce: Chapter, Chapter Head and New Caption were created to function as per Style description. Chapter was a default listing which I ignored, Chapter Head - my spec and New Caption, a standard caption format. I decided to create an individual text box for Chapter Head and apply a style to it so it would be immune from general story text flow. Same for New Caption. I would approach a table the same way and have in fact created a 3 column grid setting independent from the standard text box, with the story re-linked around it. This enables the story to flow around Chapter heads and tables as correction/revisions are made and I am free to relocate Chapters and table as suits circumstance. Footnote: A great virtue of the US market is the availability of independently published manuals in which intelligent experience such as the above is discussed, compared and evaluated. The Real World Kvern, Blatner, Bringhurst book about InDesign CS5 is a brilliant synthesis of the distilled experience of these three eminent typographer/designers. It remains essential reading despite its age. I cannot find an equivalent publication which discusses APub and I believe such a book is definitely needed. Serif have done a good job with Online Help and also providing step by step procedures in video. However, it is all step by step instruction. Many functions deserve discussion as the Styles topic above illustrates. These DTP applications are capable of supporting a variety of workflows but some are definitely better than others. I like Old Bruces approach as it underscores what I have learned from my errors. I appreciate comments from Thomaso, Mike W and all contributors; but where is the book or online manual to help us understand ? Perhaps we have a publishing collaboration opportunity here Gentlemen? I thank you all for your valuable input! Cheers,

Thank You Gentleman, I have seen the Light! Since the problem was created by style overides, and in an attempt to get back to basics, I have made ‘No Style’ the basis of Para and Font. This converts Arial para’s to Zapf and I now seem to have control over setting. In Character> Positioning and Transform, I found the leading indicator at bottom left (Just above ‘No Break), set for 12pt Arial leading which conflicted with my 12.75pt Paragraph setting. That explained the unexpected Para behaviour in large part. Converting ‘No Style’ to required settings was the sensible way to eliminate Arial. I thought creating a Zapf Style would replace the Arial, which it does only as long as the style is highlighted. Why font size changed I cannot explain. Being somewhat unfamiliar with the interface I was being caught out by the above conflict. There was no need to keep Arial so I got rid of my problems by deleting and replacing specs. Thank you very much Guys for your patience. The obvious is not so when a particular thought pattern dominates. Cheers.

Ok Guys, Have deleted old Para and Character Styles and rebuilt Styles. All is not well as the complete book has reverted to the first imported Word document default which is Arial 12pt. I expected complete setting would revert to the style I specified in my pallet. In fact as the screen shot below shows; only those para’s I have clicked and highlighted are changed. I clicked and dragged all pages in the master page section to highlight all text. Nevertheless Style changes have not taken place throughout book. What am I overlooking?

I certainly would Walt, but a few words from you may save much messing about at my end! I have yet to solve the problem. Taking your comment about page frames. I shall delete existing frames and re-create and relink. If that does not work I shall join a Monastery

Thank you for your thoughts tudor. Barking up the wrong tree unfortunately. Text is 10.5pt leading 12.75pt offer no common denominator in these sizes to qualify as a multiple. Leading is already set to ‘exactly’. Thank you for your interest Catshill. I agree. Starting a fresh import with a .rtf file is a good idea. I would like to save or convert the APub file to .rtf and start again, but the option to convert APub as .rtf is not available. Some respondents have already advised I use a file converter such as BBedit. BBEdit cannot read APub nor can it read .pdf. If someone can recommend a file converter they have used to convert APub to text file I would like to know about it. Personally I think the answer is buried in the Paragraph/Styles subcategories. If I were to delete all default Para Styles and reconfigure, would that delete text and require me to re-import original Word file? Meanwhile, how did you get on with the file I supplied Walt? Did you have time to experiment? I thank all respondents for offering their thoughts on this problem. Best Wishes,

Dear Walt, Thank you for taking an interest in this issue. I read and understood your comments. Re Text Box: I have never used scaling handle. Original file Word, not IDML. Word was imported and text frames set up automatically. No need for me to tinker. I have cut and reconnected text frames on pages 200 and 204 quite successfully so I feel confident that frames are not to blame. That said, you have more experience than me. How does the scaling handle actually create text flow problems? The fact that extending the depth of Left page 98 text frame to include both paragraphs (L&R), which I have then corrected, then found the para’s revert to error after restoring the text frame to original size on respective left p98 and right p99 as shown, implies text frame is a factor? This issue has manifested elsewhere but I have somehow solved it. Sequence of change: leading first, then font size has proved good in other cases. If I follow that principle in this case I achieve same size font with both para’s but p90 text expands to 13.593 leading or similar. So I can achieve consistent type size but not consistent leading. I have enclosed my file if you can find the time to examine pages 98 and 99 I would be interested in your findings. John Biography Final 27:8.pdf

Dear AP users. I cannot understand the behaviour I am observing regarding text size and leading defaulting to odd sizes not of my creating. As I correct text size in one para on left page, to required 10.5pt, it alters leading in the following right page para from 12.75 to 13.593pt. If I select the 13.593pt RH para and make leading the required 12.75, the previously corrected type size and para reverts to smaller type size 9.849pt and leading 11.959pt. Why the change in page number (L to R) changes font and leading beats me. One solution I tried was to extend the depth of the left page type box to include both para’s and re-set text size and leading as one block. When the text box is restored to its original depth pushing the RH para to its correct RH page, the leading returns to 13.593. If I restore RH leading to 12.75, left page leading and font size return to 9.849 and 11.959. I understand enough about the styles system to recognise the cause may be the original imported file being Word set in 12pt Times New Roman with leading and para spacing defaults which I cannot identify as I do not have Word. I also recognise my chosen font and style are based upon the imported file. I would like to eliminate specs of imported file if possible and specify clean Text and Para styles palette so there is only one style; not one style based on another. How should I correctly do this without losing my text?. Advice would be appreciated. Screen shot A shows text 9.489 highlighted for change to 10.5pt. Screen shot B shows RH para leading expanded to 13.593 as a result of Left Page font size increase.

Thanks Tudor. Actually I find the whole process very simple using cut and paste. I tried editors many of which favoured HTML code formatting and finally found Text Edit in mac accepted pasting text from Affinity cut and paste. The next logical step was to simply create a new Affinity file then cut and paste from old file into new file. Funny how reliance on apps tends to blind one to the obvious! Thank you to all respondents, Cheers all.

Sounds interesting. I was using Import and Export procedures, I had not considered drag and drop/copy and paste. Which text editor did you use Tudor?

Dear Serif, I find myself facing a situation where a series of client changes and updated requirements to an already designed a4 book, suggest I would be better off starting the 256 page book again from the beginning rather than fixing existing pages one at a time manually. I cannot work from original Word doc as far too many text changes have been made to the Apub file. I must work with text in the Apub file. However, once text is specified in Apub it can only be imported into another Apub doc in its final saved design format. I wish to strip out those format specs. column and border sizes and hard line returns, and finish up with text that I can re-import into a new Apub doc with new column specs, letting text flow throughout document as normal with imported text. If I could save the original Apub doc in .rtf that would possibly solve the problem but .rtf is not offered as an Apub file format. My only choice currently, is to duplicate my Apub file and manually revise each one of 256 pages. This is a huge time waster. I ask you to consider introducing a file format which is text only, so any Apub doc text can be reused easily in a different format in any new Apub document. This would add immense flexibility to Apub. The same text only setting could be easily imported in to each of several entirely different formatted documents. A huge saving of time and a great convenience.

Research establishes Serif have not provided access to any third party application developer to create a text file converter. Mater misericordiae!

Hi Garry, The option you offer is the one I seek to avoid. I have 256 pages and I figure there must be a better way than page by page adjustment. Maybe there is third party software that will convert. I shall search. Meanwhile anyone who has a better option gets my vote for Genius of the Month. Cheers,

Thank you for your interest Garry. Q1. I am changing type measure (column width, height and margins). I am changing type leading but retaining font size. My concern is all about getting the text into a file format that will flow into a new APub type area. Q2. I include hard returns for text lines as they will probably obstruct text flowing into a new format and deleteing hard return globally prior to import seems to me a wise step. I am making the changes to improve layout design. I cannot import original Word Doc as too many text changes have been made to the APub file. I trust this helps. Cheers,

Have completed an AF document A, and wish to re-create same text document with new specs for margins, type etc. called B. I seek advice on how best to do this. Importing the A afpub file into new AF doc over-rides new doc settings - type does not re-flow, old settings are preserved. I cannot save old file as a text only document. That would solve the issue as such text when imported would re-flow. That option is not available in the AF export options. So how does one best reflow text to new specs? I would also like to globally delete the old doc A, Para hard returns. How is this done?

I wonder about your flexible interpretation of typographic aspects especially since you consider your experience with technique and rules before DTP to be an important aspect in this thread. No doubt, it's not for me to judge – it was just surprisingly irritating because I have those old technics and rules as a lot more strict in mind than some nowadays understanding of typography. I am sorry Thomaso, I appear to have confused you. My reference to: your remarks introduce perceptions entirely of your own creation, refers to your earlier statement as above; Those comments refer to your perceptions of typographic changes over time. Thomaso, I do not mind how you choose to measure line lengths. Let us put this topic aside; you have your approach and I have mine. There is little difference between us and little to be gained from further debate. If you look at my website, www.tonyfostergraphicdesign you will see both website and portfolio reflect typesetting which matches your preferences. I trust this will help reconcile any differences. Best Wishes,

Hi Thomaso, Thank you for the link to Baymard Institute research data. I enclose a link to Bob Bailey PhD which appears to contradict Baymard. https://www.usability.gov/get-involved/blog/2006/08/line-length-and-onscreen-reading.html To some degree the difference is easy to explain: Baymard are testing on-screen reading for e commerce. Bailey is testing on-screen speed reading of line lengths. Both tests at best, confirm a few known facts. Neither offer a model for readability. Baileys conclusion is strange: Conclusion The best available research suggests that users will read fastest if the line lengths are longer (up to 10 inches). If the line lengths are too short (e.g., two and a half inch columns), the line length probably will impede rapid reading. Users tend to prefer lines that are relatively short (about four inches). Researchers are like car mechanics. They can measure the behaviour of a selected component, but a profession driver is needed to drive the car at optimal performance. I agree an optimal line length is around 110mm for book and magazine work. Also it is obvious that we all read columns narrower than two inches without trauma. These research examples merely show that using one factor, line length, without discussing text size, content and leading is really quite misleading. Thank you for bringing this to my attention Thomaso. Cheers.

Hi Walt, Preferences > Reset is just a return to factory settings after having previously changed points, mm etc. Cheers,

Thank You Walt. Affinity Publisher> Preferences>Reset is the subhead box under ‘Decimal Places for Unit types’. Thanks I see how it works. Cheers,

Dear Folks, 1. Regarding decimals and Preferences; Am I correct in saying, the Preferences > Reset > points, mm, etc, controls palette number settings only, not AP itself. Walt and Thomaso seem to be saying the software operates to whatever decimal places irrespective of Preferences setting. 2. Thomaso; First, I expressed my typographic preferences to explain to Old Bruce why I said baseline grid is not the way I would go. a) Quote: ‘IMHO, cost calculations should never affect readability in this way’, From my reading you imply smaller paragraphs inhibit readability. Please tell me how a smaller or larger paragraph space affect readability in your opinion. If a researcher seeks to measure readability with two identical texts in 12 pt type, with the same font and measure, The only difference being one text has 4 paragraphs spaced 4 points apart and the second text is 4 paragraphs spaced 12 points apart, would you expect tests would show any difference in reading time? Put another way, would you expect the 4 point para’s to inhibit reading? I contend the research results would show no difference whatsoever in reading speed or comprehension. I believe the only significant difference between paragraphs is a matter of aesthetic preferences and the economics of printing. So putting aesthetics aside, I demonstrate that excessively wide para spaces add economic costs to large publications. b) Quote: ‘it was just surprisingly irritating because I have those old technics and rules as a lot more strict in mind than some nowadays understanding of typography.’ I understand that statement to mean old typographic values are too strict and have no place in modern typesetting. (I never mentioned rules). Let me respond thus: Since Gutenberg, typography has been about conveying the meaning of words through publications as efficiently as possible within the economic constraints of the time. The media involved may be conservative as with regular text books, or radical, as with political propaganda, Dada, Constructivism or Punk publications. Since the subject of all communication is transmission of information between people, the lessons of the past apply today. The physical limitations of human vision today are the same as the past. There are hard and fast rules about the limitations of human vision and visual perception which are not widely appreciated. Cultural climates may change carrying art and design with them, but reading remains a physiological constant about which we should be mindful. Thomaso, I state these observations not to lecture, but to to make my position clear as your remarks introduce perceptions entirely of your own creation. I am pleased you feel strongly about typography as it shows you care and consider the subject carefully which I applaud. I have found your AP advice and observations most helpfuI and I am not in any way offended by the differences to which you have alluded. I believe they are simply the result of misunderstanding. After all, Germany is the home of modern typography and continues to produce outstanding type designers with outstanding work. Perhaps we have more in common than you recognise. I also sympathise with your experience regarding the Newsletter. I think many of us have met a client who figuratively, ‘employs a dog and barks themselves’. Let me offer you this: Early in my career I undertook freelance design for many advertising agencies. I was commissioned to produce packaging for a hair tinting product. I designed a package in using black, brown with gold stamping which I thought looked quite smart. Happily, so did the agency’s client. The Account Director was the wife of the agency owner and she was pleased and remarked “Well brown is such a creative colour”. “How so” I asked. “I read a book about the psychology of colour and the author stated that the first act of creation by an infant is defecation. Thus the link between brown and creativity is established”. I was speechless at this drivel. However, I shared the story with a good friend, an agency partner and Creative Director. He chuckled and responded “That’s one of the things I like about advertising, the opportunity to meet new faeces”. LOL

Dear patient Affinity users, Open Champagne bottles and toast to success! The solution was as describe, Justify Vertically. Thank you Dan C and Thomaso for pointing that out. Now I have located the tool in the top panel I can leave the land of micro-measurement for a simpler life! Before doing so let me respond to your helpful comments; Walt, I think in points after 60 years of typography. As Thomaso remarked, points are more accurate than mm. Most importantly I learned graphic design typography when students set monotype by hand and visited the the Linotype casting machines in the steamy environment of the College basement where hot ingots of lead melted into pots feeding the Linotype casting machines. Must have been a health hazard. Therefore my concepts of space are traditionally conditioned. I set a text frame in mm then fill it with type and images measured in points. Walt, I accept your remark about setting all in mm. However type and leading is specified in points. Damned if I can think conceptually of 10pt type as 3.5mm or 12 point as 4.2mm. Happily, the software does the conversion as long as I do not mix specs arbitrarily. Your reference to Preferences is appreciated and understood. According to the Affinity Workbook, p 228, Points preferences should be reset to 3 decimal places to help the software make accurate conversions of points to mm. From that, I assumed Show lines in Points and Show text in Points must be switched on for the Text and Paragraph panels. That seems to be the case. Now I have switched them off, type sizes in panels are expressed in decimal mm. I applaud the logic of using one scale of measurement only. A new user will much more quickly adjust to AP in this respect as they will not be burdened with prior concepts. I am quite comfortable handling both points and metric as long as I understand the software behaviour properly which thanks to you guys, is progressing. Old Bruce, If I have confused you it is possible the result of our different working preferences. I understand your advocacy of baseline grid. From you comments you are happy to accept a paragraph space equal to the type size plus leading (say 12/14). I am not. I regard a 12 pt paragraph space as far too wide. It separates text into chunks. These chunks are particularly unpleasant to my eye. From my observation, The AP workbook is entirely composed upon a baseline grid. Wide para spaces in narrow columns are to me, unacceptable aesthetically. For a technical document such as the AP workbook, my objection may be countered by the argument that facts are being delivered para by para. To some degree I can accept that. But in a novel or text book, such para spaces are not only ugly, they impede readability and significantly, waste space. Were I to use baseline grid the 232 page book would expand at the rate approximately 8 points per average 7 para’s per page x 226 pages = 12,656 pts or 1054.6 picas which require a further 22 more pages which is two more 16pp sections to print. Thus we have a minimum 10% overall increase in printing, binding costs as the book is bigger. At 536 pages, had I designed AP Workbook, I could have saved Serif quite a few quid! Thomaso, I am with you regarding decimal arithmetic. Thank you very much for pointing out the expressions. Very useful to know and to improve my working method. Everyone. Thank you very much for your input. It is nice to find a solution but also very interesting to see where dialogues lead is it not?

Apologies for late reply. Thank you for your comments. There are several aspects which deserve discussion. I shall try and be brief. 1. Baseline grid. Given the nuisance of points to mm unit conversion exactitude is broadly impossible. I tried to choose a grid size divisible by Text: 12.75 points = 4.497mm approx. Para: 4 points = 1.4mm approx. In this respects I appreciate Thomaso suggestion about keeping an accurate common denominator so ratio’s more easily remain constant. Nevertheless, Given the different number of para’s on each page I reasoned baseline grid is not the way to go as it is impossible to choose a grid dimension which will suit all pages. Even if the para space is an even fraction of text size, no grid will accommodate the variety of paragraphs evenly. 2. Balance columns. This seems the logical approach. However, if I understand correctly, to balance, columns must be created within one text frame. That is not my situation. 3. Justify Vertically. Appeals to me as the software will minutely adjust spacing over full page depth. Thank you Thomaso and Old Bruce. Your understanding is most helpful. Two questions: With vertical adjustment, is the space adjusted in para’s only, (as is the case with balance columns), or is space taken from line spacing and paragraph spacing? How do I set Vertical adjustment? PS Full screen image plus original file for those kind enough to experiment enclosed Note to Dan C Thank you Dan. From my reading and experiment, baseline grid works fine under two conditions 1. Para size must equal one line size (10 pt type = 10 pt para). 2. Multiple Columns must be within one text frame. For multiple columns each with several paragraphs, Balance columns works best to achieve common baseline by adding space to paragraphs according to the depth (fall) of columns. From my observation using both Baseline Grid and Balance texts creates conflict. Each seems to function according to different rules. Neither of these options appear to help the situation I describe. I thought by highlighting Page 16 and Page 17 and activating Balance Columns that my problem would be solved. But that does not work. Note to Thomaso. I very much appreciate your approach to Affinity text and para size considerations. Thank you also for your comments about line length and readability. This is a very familiar, subjective and debatable topic. Your views would be endorsed by many. However, people read words, not characters. People also dislike broken (hyphenated words) which short line lengths tend to create. The subject is best put into the context of media vehicle. If magazines, your figures are generally accepted. If Books, the question expands to consider the kind of writing and the size of the format. Some authors use long words often, (technical or scientific journals), while novelists use short words intentionally (Hemingway). We read words not characters and I regard 15 to 20 words per line of mature writing comfortable to read. Others may disagree. Reading is conditioned by experience and I have read widely. Like the argument about readability of serif and non-serif type, what works depends upon the sensitivity and knowledge of the typographer/designer, and the experience (conditioning), of the audience. There are adults out there who prefer Comic books claiming too many words are confusing and they like the drawings (Manga). If you have not read Herbert Spencers 1967 “the visible Word” which deal with worldwide research results there is interesting information waiting for you. For the digital age, a 2017 article “Reading in the Digital Age” by Naomi Baron should be embraced. Do not believe the 1967 information is obsolete. Modern research confirms all the essentials. John Biography Final.afpub

I previously asked about balancing columns and the answer was to create columns within the text frame. That works. But how do I balance text frames as page spreads? EG See Baseline Detail screenshot I have been monkeying with Baseline Grid and Balance Columns,singly and in combination but cannot get a solution. Anyone care to offer a solution? Many Thanks,

Well Joe_I showed me what a silly oversight I had made. The ensuing debate about screen shots was nevertheless illuminating. What Psenda said about choosing smaller area of screen assumes I know the possible cause of the problem which I did not. As for screen resolution generally, at 5120 x 2880 I can only assume Psenda is having difficulties due to file/resolution incompatibility? Most unfortunate for a helpful fellow. Thanks for the considerations guys,

Hi Joe, Silly Me! Thank you for pointing that out. Best Wishes,