Request: Replace "Leading Override" with "Leading"

[PaulEC]

19 hours ago, Mark Oehlschlager said:

@NNN

Significantly, no one can describe or illustrate a reason for the "leading override" attribute to exist. It just invites confusion. It ought to be withdrawn.

If you don't want to use it, just ignore it!

Maybe there are other ways to achieve the same results, but personally I find it useful. I do get a bit fed up with people saying that things should be removed or changed just because they don't use it themselves. Different people use the apps for different things, in different ways. Please don't dictate to people how they should work. "If you don't like it, then leave it alone"!

[Mark Oehlschlager]

5 hours ago, thomaso said:

Your example does not seem to need Leading Override as the exceptional 14 pt font size fits the 16 pt line spacing of the entire paragraph.

Correct.  I assumed your hypothetical of introducing a larger point size to selected words within a paragraph for emphasis. And in that hypothetical, the leading for the paragraph is set to accommodate that design choice. To apply a local leading override for a selected 14 point word within an 11/13 paragraph would mean forcing that one line in the paragraph to separate the upper half of the paragraph from the lower half. (The application adds leading above.) 

I'm not sure why one would want to intentionally separate two halves of a logical block of text (a paragraph) for the sake of emphasizing a word or phrase with a larger point size.

[Mark Oehlschlager]

4 hours ago, PaulEC said:

I do get a bit fed up with people saying that things should be removed or changed just because they don't use it themselves.

It's not simply a matter of an extra feature in Publisher that doesn't exist in other page layout applications. It's that it a) subverts the established UI standards of character and paragraph panels seen in other major page layout applications, repurposing the standard leading attribute to become a leading override attribute without calling attention to it's new function, causing confusion;  and b) departs from logic of a typesetter thinking in terms of paragraph attributes – face, weight, point size and leading – and not only sets a trap by redefining the leading field in the character panel to become a leading override field, but introduces workflow inefficiencies by forcing the typesetter to flip back and forth between panels to set the basic attributes of a paragraph. Working quickly to build paragraph styles one is accustomed to setting these properties up in a single panel.

Any way, I realize that Affinity have much bigger fish to fry – including a total rethink of the Color Swatch panel, which is a clunky mess. This will likely not change. It seems baked in at this point.

[thomaso]

On 9/19/2021 at 10:29 PM, Mark Oehlschlager said:

I'm not sure why one would want to intentionally separate two halves of a logical block of text (a paragraph) for the sake of emphasizing a word or phrase with a larger point size.

Design can be a matter of bad taste – or possibly of marketing or politics if a designer is asked by the client to emphasize a person, product or company name that way. See also examples in various videos above.

On 9/19/2021 at 10:47 PM, Mark Oehlschlager said:

an extra feature in Publisher that doesn't exist in other page layout applications.

Maybe you just never used it? There is a hint even in ID for Dummies book, were leading is mentioned to be "traditionally an attribute of paragraphs" but also …

Once a colleague asked me to setup a little text style automatism in his ID document, a catalog of hundreds of repetitive text/style patterns. When I started to define nested and GREP styles in this .indd I noticed that the existing styles were all character styles only and it became obvious that he never had used paragraph styles for years. So, it appears to be even possible to work with Leading Override only, ironically.

 

[Petar Petrenko]

9 hours ago, Mark Oehlschlager said:

flip back and forth between panels to set the basic attributes

And this is not only true in this case. There are plenty of situations where you need to make unnecessary clicks which slow down the work.

9 hours ago, Mark Oehlschlager said:

Any way, I realize that Affinity have much bigger fish to fry – including a total rethink of the Color Swatch panel, which is a clunky mess. This will likely not change. It seems baked in at this point.

Yes, one of these is Swatches panel.

[AndyQ]

On 7/23/2020 at 6:31 AM, Mark Oehlschlager said:

@walt.farrell

This logic make perfect sense in the abstract, which is probably why an engineer who does not set type set it up this way,  but does not respect the way that type setters think about and work with type.

It breaks the typesetter's conceptual model, introduces unnecessary confusion with a new "Leading Override" attribute field, and introduces the workflow friction point of extra clicks to record the basic idea: typeface, weight, point size and leading.

I can see logical reasoning for it to be in "paragraph", but it's definitely impractical for daily use. That would be like filing "toilet paper" in the "stationery cupboard" because it's paper, rather than keeping it in the bathroom. As with many such decisions, Affinity need only look at some other apps for guidance (or even a box of metal type, where you will also find your leading bars next to your letters...)

[sbe]

So true. This is a big usability fail, when learned habits suddenly behave differently. I agree Serif should stick to the industry standard and not do its own thing where there has never been a problem.

[garrettm30]

I actually ran across a reason to use leading override a few days ago, and I thought about this thread. I, for one, like to keep leading as a paragraph attribute (which seems the logical choice) all while having the potential to override for specific, albeit rare, cases.