Setting up Text boxes in AD V1

[jackamus]

Changing the subject a little, is it possible to justify a single line in a text box without affecting the preceding unjustified text?

[walt.farrell]

21 minutes ago, jackamus said:

Changing the subject a little, is it possible to justify a single line in a text box without affecting the preceding unjustified text?

As long as that single line is a separate paragraph, yes. If it's not, then I don't think so.

[jackamus]

6 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

As long as that single line is a separate paragraph, yes. If it's not, then I don't think so.

In that case I would need to change that line into a paragraph but without the paragraph leading! In other words I would have to create a one-line paragraph with no leading.

[walt.farrell]

4 minutes ago, jackamus said:

In that case I would need to change that line into a paragraph but without the paragraph leading! In other words I would have to create a one-line paragraph with no leading.

No. You need to create it without Space Before and Space After settings.

Standard Leading should be fine. But the default 12 pt spacing after paragraphs will mess things up if you don't change it.

[jackamus]

7 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

No. You need to create it without Space Before and Space After settings.

Standard Leading should be fine. But the default 12 pt spacing after paragraphs will mess things up if you don't change it.

Thanks Walt. I have another problem in that I have a justified paragraph where the last line is a short one but it is still justified even though I selected 'Justified left'.

[loukash]

3 hours ago, jackamus said:

is it possible to justify a single line in a text box without affecting the preceding unjustified text?

As long as the preceding text flow or the column width won't change anymore: yes.
Use Tracking on whitespaces only. Apply a character style to all spaces in the line you want to justify, then fine tune the style until the line fits:

P.S. Of course, every such line will require its own character style.

[walt.farrell]

3 hours ago, jackamus said:

but it is still justified even though I selected 'Justified left'.

That sounds like you actually selected Justified All. But we would need a screenshot or sample document to confirm that.

[jackamus]

1 hour ago, loukash said:

As long as the preceding text flow or the column width won't change anymore: yes.
Use Tracking on whitespaces only. Apply a character style to all spaces in the line you want to justify, then fine tune the style until the line fits:

P.S. Of course, every such line will require its own character style.

This is what I mean getting complicated! What kind of expression is 'Tracking" its not an intuitive word. You have to be told what it means. I just use the space bar to add extra space between words. Why can't we just simply highlight the line and justify it? And anyway why is not justified in the first place?

[Alfred]

6 minutes ago, jackamus said:

not an intuitive word

How do you determine what should be regarded as ‘intuitive’? In any specialist field there is jargon that simply has to be learned, and it seems to me that tracking and kerning are pretty basic concepts here.

[walt.farrell]

34 minutes ago, jackamus said:

And anyway why is not justified in the first place?

Without more information, and ideally a sample document to examine, how would we know?

[loukash]

36 minutes ago, jackamus said:

What kind of expression is 'Tracking"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracking#Other_uses: 

Quote

• Tracking, typographers' term for letter-spacing, uniformly increasing or decreasing the space between all letters in a block of text

And further:

Quote

In typography, letter spacing, character spacing or tracking is an optically consistent adjustment to the space between letters to change the visual density of a line or block of text.

New Oxford American Dictionary:

Quote

track·ing| ˈtrakiNG | noun

1 Electronics the maintenance of a constant difference in frequency between two or more connected circuits or components. 
• the formation of a conducting path for an electric current over the surface of an insulating material. 

2 the alignment of the wheels of a vehicle.

[…]

 

^ Seems to have a similar origin.

In German:

Quote

Spationierung ist der typografische Begriff für die Festlegung des horizontalen Zeichenabstandes, der Buchstabenabstände, der Wortabstände und Sonderabstände.

People create words and give them meaning.
A language emerges.
Sometimes it's gobbledygook for outsiders.

[R C-R]

43 minutes ago, jackamus said:

This is what I mean getting complicated!

Yes, it is complicated. There is nothing you can do about that other than stop using any app that offers more than a very basic set of typography options -- basically use only ones that supports nothing more complicated than plain, un-styled text.

[jackamus]

1 hour ago, walt.farrell said:

That sounds like you actually selected Justified All. But we would need a screenshot or sample document to confirm that.

Hi Walt,

LOL I can't find the line now because I added extra inter-word space using the space-bar so its not obvious for a screen shot. I'll have to wait untill it does it again!

[jackamus]

54 minutes ago, Alfred said:

How do you determine what should be regarded as ‘intuitive’? In any specialist field there is jargon that simply has to be learned, and it seems to me that tracking and kerning are pretty basic concepts here.

What's the word Tracking' got to do with adding space? Its not an intuitive word. I would have used 'Word spacing'.

[jackamus]

30 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

Without more information, and ideally a sample document to examine, how would we know?

Yes Walt I agree. As I said before I'll have to wait for a repeat.

[loukash]

12 minutes ago, jackamus said:

What's the word Tracking' got to do with adding space? Its not an intuitive word. I would have used 'Word spacing'.

In my workaround, I'm using the Tracking attribute to mimic manual word spacing.
Of course, you can also use Em-spaces, En-spaces, etc. to get the same appearance. It's up to you.

Unlike in the physical world, in the virtual world of digital software, you can use tools and functions to achieve your goals in a way that wasn't even intended for that purpose. 
You can call that creative freedom.

Also, many ways lead to Rome, as they say.

[R C-R]

2 minutes ago, jackamus said:

What's the word Tracking' got to do with adding space? Its not an intuitive word. I would have used 'Word spacing'.

Word spacing is the space between words. Tracking is the space between characters. 

Yet another reference to this typography-related definition at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tracking suggests that "Letterspacing" might be an alternative, but it's longer & doesn't really emphasize it means a standard spacing.

[walt.farrell]

32 minutes ago, jackamus said:

What's the word Tracking' got to do with adding space? Its not an intuitive word. I would have used 'Word spacing'.

It's adding space between letters, not words, as R C-R has mentioned. And as also mentioned, it's not a term that Serif invented for use in Affinity. It is a digital typesetting term, used elsewhere too.

[jackamus]

OK RC. Check out these links. What is so wrong with using these expressions for DTP typesetting?

https://britishletterpress.co.uk/letterpress-guides/composition/leading-and-other-spacing-materials/

I can't the use of the word 'tracking' in either of these 2 links.

http://www.belltype.com/AboutType.html

 

[thomaso]

29 minutes ago, jackamus said:

What is so wrong with using these expressions for DTP typesetting?

For me, there is nothing wrong. It just didn't happen, perhaps to avoid confusion due to the different workflows and possibilities that could lead (!) to questions like "Why are they named the same word if they are not the same thing?" … What would be wrong to call the 'wheels' of a car 'legs', as we were used for horses, since both have the same function and result: if moved correctly then a space gets increased …? We even could say a car or horse is clumpsing, leading or regleting …, with the idea to make something less complicated.

Indeed, it makes little sense to compare these two technologies or their terms, except for historical reasons. Then we can go even further and wonder about the ethymology of the words, which may help to understand the history but not the differences between this two technologies.

[R C-R]

14 minutes ago, thomaso said:

For me, there is nothing wrong. It just didn't happen, perhaps to avoid confusion due to the different workflows and possibilities that could lead (!) to questions like "Why are they named the same word if they are not the same thing?" … What would be wrong to call the 'wheels' of a car 'legs', as we were used for horses, since both have the same function and result: if moved correctly then a space gets increased …? We even could say a car or horse is clumpsing, leading or regleting …, with the idea to make something less complicated.

To me, that is exactly what's wrong with using terms that apply to something as if they apply equally well to something else. It leads to lots of confusion.

[jackamus]

5 minutes ago, thomaso said:

For me, there is nothing wrong. It just didn't happen, perhaps to avoid confusion due to the different workflows and possibilities that could lead (!) to questions like "Why are they named the same word if they are not the same thing?" … What would be wrong to call the 'wheels' of a car 'legs', as we were used for horses, since both have the same function and result: if moved correctly then a space gets increased …? We even could say a car or horse is clumpsing, leading or regleting …, with the idea to make something less complicated.

Indeed, it makes little sense to compare these two technologies or their terms, except for historical reasons. Then we can go even further and wonder about the ethymology of the words, which may help to understand the history but not the differences between this two technologies.

This is one of the problems when trying to discuss something within a reasonable set of parameters, someone then says,"Ah but what about when you...?" It then escalates exponentially and the original discussion gets lost.

As an illustration I believe that there is an area that has  been greatly helped by computers but without changing  any of the traditional standards and nomenclature and that is music! The computer can create instant audible sounds of a musical composition as it is written which is great. It can instantly change pitch or key or volume or all the other audible aspect of music but without  changing the way it is traditionally understood.

If a DTP graphics developer got hold of it I reckon the first thing he would do would be to create 6 line staves instead of the traditional 5 on the basis that there are just 12 different notes (I speak of western music). He would make the notes of base clef match the treble clef only but still an octave apart. He would probably stop using separate symbols for sharps and flats and just use one symbol called a 'halftone' (actually a 'halftone' is a printing expression!) since they are the same note. He would probably argue that it dosen't matter whether the note is rising or falling it's still the same note. On the face of it seems a very logical thing to do but that would mean completely re-inventing the whole musical system that has been set in stone for centuries. It would seem that music is the one artistic skill that has defied modernisation.

If there's anyone out there who is a musician then he will know what I mean.

I rest my case yet again.

 

[jackamus]

14 minutes ago, R C-R said:

To me, that is exactly what's wrong with using terms that apply to something as if they apply equally well to something else. It leads to lots of confusion.

With respect RC you are unable to see a connection between things that are similar and things that aren't. The 'something else' you speak of may be connected but totally different with the other thing and therefore cannot be treated equally like wheels and legs. Although they are connected (do the same job) they cannot be compared in a like way and to try and make it so would be daft!

[MikeW]

Tilting at windmills much, @jackamus?

You are not going to convince anyone. 

[thomaso]

5 minutes ago, jackamus said:

This is one of the problems when trying to discuss something within a reasonable set of parameters, someone then says,"Ah but what about when you...?" It then escalates exponentially and the original discussion gets lost.

True. But in my eyes this problem starts as soon a comparison gets used. It compares different things, expecting they would not differ.

I would say there is also development in music notation. One obvious change occurred when percussion appeared and got its notation, too.

Apart from this modernisation of notation, I would rather compare music notation with the alphabet and its letters - than with the technical processes of typesetting in DTP, which compares to keyboard and various interfaces to the digital process.

But back to this thread, / a former question about a technical aspect of development in DTP:

On 1/19/2023 at 11:16 PM, Old Bruce said:

On 1/19/2023 at 10:02 PM, thomaso said:

Does anyone know what prompted the designers of digital typefaces to disrupt this principle of common, uniform standard sizes for the body height in lead types? In particular for what use, purpose or advantage in DTP? And, Is there another comparable change in the handling of a unit that turns it from clear and unambiguous to vague and approximate as it happened with font size?

I prefer using numbers to denote height as opposed to Primer and Long Primer and Brevier and Pica and Small Pica and.... All I can recall from years back.

… while @jackamus had a less specific answer:

On 1/20/2023 at 11:00 AM, jackamus said:

I think the reason that developers changed the traditional way of typesetting is because they weren't typographers and changed it for something that thought was better. Did they ever consult typographers?

Maybe my question was unclear: I want to know a technical reason for a difference in digital font height whereas I would expect that it would be handled as in lead letters where a certain body (?) (german – engl.: ~körper / fleisch ~flesh) did not vary. In the sample below I am not referring to the height of the black characters (which may vary of cause for a certain font size) but I wonder about the differences in the height of the blueish background (which appears to correspond with the highlight area of a text selection) … while, of course, the handwriting font has to differ to correspond with the x-height of grotesk type.

• So, for what purpose (advantage, technical reason) do Arial + Corporate exceed the set height of 15 pt from the centre while Bodoni + Futura are rather moved downwards?
• And why do Arial / Corporate exceed their text height with their 'box' at all while Bodoni/Futura seem to fit in their 'box' exactly?
• I would expect they all would take the same 15 pt area (indicated by yellow) as their limit and none would exceed the common height but stay in their "box". (again, handwriting excepted). It seems, none of the samples fully respects the set 15 pt. How come?