Setting up Text boxes in AD V1

[loukash]

44 minutes ago, Washishu said:

I liked QuarkXpress because—maybe because it was one of the earlier DTP systems —they chose to follow custom and terminology as far as possible so’s not to alienate their potential users.

Was that still in v3? I think I vaguely remember something like that. It definitely wasn't in v4.
Or was it in Aldus PageMaker 3? (I still may have a copy somewhere! It will surely run in my Mini vMac emulator on System 7!)

46 minutes ago, Washishu said:

Twelve point type with 12pt leading would be lines of 12pt type with a 12pt lead between each line (24pts baseline to baseline).

Keep in mind that typography is not English only.
Zeilenabstand = "line distance" in German isn't as misleading (ha, pun!) as "leading".

52 minutes ago, Washishu said:

12pt type with 2pt leading would be written as 12/14pt. A typographer/typesetter would know immediately what that meant.

There will be less and less of us. Much like there are only a few folks in the (western) world who still know how to build e.g. a wooden barrel.
That's progress, I guess.  

[jackamus]

3 minutes ago, loukash said:

Was that still in v3? I think I vaguely remember something like that. It definitely wasn't in v4.
Or was it in Aldus PageMaker 3? (I still may have a copy somewhere! It will surely run in my Mini vMac emulator on System 7!)

Keep in mind that typography is not English only.
Zeilenabstand = "line distance" in German isn't as misleading (ha, pun!) as "leading".

There will be less and less of us. Much like there are only a few folks in the (western) world who still know how to build e.g. a wooden barrel.
That's progress, I guess.  

To a large extent I agree with foukash and that is why there is a lot less skill in the world today which has been detrimental to humankind.

[R C-R]

48 minutes ago, jackamus said:

Regarding leading override I think Old Bruce covers it and I agree that it would have been difficult to do in the old days. Having said that its an awful way to do type! Its the job of the graphic designer to choose how to 'hang himself' and not the software designer! In order to accommodate this kind of poor graphic design, the software designer as made simple typography more complicated in order to do it.

I think you have that backwards. The software developers job is to provide all the tools needed for graphic designers to 'hang themselves' however they want, even if it breaks longstanding traditions & creates a design some traditionalists would consider awful.

[jackamus]

1 hour ago, R C-R said:

I think you have that backwards. The software developers job is to provide all the tools needed for graphic designers to 'hang themselves' however they want, even if it breaks longstanding traditions & creates a design some traditionalists would consider awful.

No RC-R you are wrong! Its because the developers 'choose' to break with tradition that we have the problems! Why do they need to break with tradition? Like I have said before, "They are trying to re-invent the wheel"!

[R C-R]

14 minutes ago, jackamus said:

No RC-R you are wrong! Its because the developers 'choose' to break with tradition that we have the problems! Why do they need to break with tradition? Like I have said before, "They are trying to re-invent the wheel"!

There are so-called traditions that do no more than limit what designers can or should be able to do if it is something they feel contributes to their work because once it was not possible or very difficult to do using existing methods, like for example increasing the size of one word or phrase in a line of text to emphasize its importance.

There is no reason for software designers to continue to be bound by those or any other limitations that are now very easy to overcome.

[jackamus]

3 minutes ago, R C-R said:

There are so-called traditions that do no more than limit what designers can or should be able to do if it is something they feel contributes to their work because once it was not possible or very difficult to do using existing methods, like for example increasing the size of one word or phrase in a line of text to emphasize its importance.

There is no reason for software designers to continue to be bound by those or any other limitations that are now very easy to overcome.

All you are doing making an excuse to ignore a good solid tradition in favour of features that allow a rarely used style. If that is not the case then why warn about using leading override?

That's why I suggest keeping a tab for the traditional or commonly used way of typesetting and another tab for this kind messing around! Lets face it since the advice constantly given to not use the leading override feature is because it can screw-up traditional/conventional typography.

[jackamus]

7 minutes ago, jackamus said:

All you are doing making an excuse to ignore a good solid tradition in favour of features that allow a rarely used style. If that is not the case then why warn about using leading override?

That's why I suggest keeping a tab for the traditional or commonly used way of typesetting and another tab for this kind messing around! Lets face it since the advice constantly given to not use the leading override feature is because it can screw-up traditional/conventional typography.

Another thought RC, should the developers also include, within the current Tabs, a feature to allow a line of type to be vertical or at an angle and different sizes within a paragraph? Don't you think that this would call for a 'Special' kind of feature tab?

[R C-R]

1 minute ago, jackamus said:

All you are doing making an excuse to ignore a good solid tradition in favour of features that allow a rarely used style. If that is not the case then why warn about using leading override?

I do not understand what you mean about a warning for using leading override. As has been explained more than once, if you do not manually set an override, none will be applied. Would you want the app to warn you about everything that it happens only if you intentionally change it from the default?

As for "traditional" typesetting, my printed newspapers, magazines, brochures, & just about every other print medium I regularly see uses a wide range of different text styles, sizes, leading, & so on. There is no single tradition for any of it.

[jackamus]

18 minutes ago, R C-R said:

I do not understand what you mean about a warning for using leading override. As has been explained more than once, if you do not manually set an override, none will be applied. Would you want the app to warn you about everything that it happens only if you intentionally change it from the default?

As for "traditional" typesetting, my printed newspapers, magazines, brochures, & just about every other print medium I regularly see uses a wide range of different text styles, sizes, leading, & so on. There is no single tradition for any of it.

The reason you see that in publications today is because the conventional/traditional way of type setting has been changed to fit in with the lower standards of typography but that doesn't mean that there isn't a conventional/standard/traditional way.

[Old Bruce]

1 minute ago, jackamus said:

... that doesn't mean that there isn't a conventional/standard/traditional way.

Near as I can recall, from the 70's on up to now, the conventional/standard/traditional way has been to set Leading as an attribute of the Paragraph. Yes, I have set type by hand. I hand fed paper into letterpresses. I used a Heidelberg Letterpress as well. Never do I recall anyone talking about how an individual letter/character/glyph hunk-of-lead had a Leading attribute.

Only when we started using filmset type were we able to (inadvertently) overprint one line on an earlier/higher one. Using 14 point type with -6 points of space between the lines.

If you think the Leading should be set in the Character Panel then you are not alone. I can see how It just seems somehow logical that after choosing 12 points for the size of the letters that that panel would be the place to set the Point-size for leading as well. Well it isn't. Leading is a Paragraph Attribute. Leading Overrides affect the line of type in which that letter is placed.

I wish we could set the Typeface and Weight and Size in the Paragraph panel but currently we can't.

[R C-R]

20 minutes ago, jackamus said:

The reason you see that in publications today is because the conventional/traditional way of type setting has been changed to fit in with the lower standards of typography but that doesn't mean that there isn't a conventional/standard/traditional way.

The reason is because the standards have been broadened, not lowered, due to the increased capabilities of the tools modern technology has made possible. And like with any tools, it is up to the user to learn how to use them correctly for the intended purpose. So for example the purpose of typography in a newspaper is not necessarily the same as in a sales brochure or magazine or novel or technical manual.

[jackamus]

8 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

Near as I can recall, from the 70's on up to now, the conventional/standard/traditional way has been to set Leading as an attribute of the Paragraph. Yes, I have set type by hand. I hand fed paper into letterpresses. I used a Heidelberg Letterpress as well. Never do I recall anyone talking about how an individual letter/character/glyph hunk-of-lead had a Leading attribute.

Only when we started using filmset type were we able to (inadvertently) overprint one line on an earlier/higher one. Using 14 point type with -6 points of space between the lines.

If you think the Leading should be set in the Character Panel then you are not alone. I can see how It just seems somehow logical that after choosing 12 points for the size of the letters that that panel would be the place to set the Point-size for leading as well. Well it isn't. Leading is a Paragraph Attribute. Leading Overrides affect the line of type in which that letter is placed.

I wish we could set the Typeface and Weight and Size in the Paragraph panel but currently we can't.

I am willing to concede that leading is a paragraph attribute and not leading in DTP.

Isn't your last comment a reason for not having separate tabs for Character and Paragraphs? I could live with that one!

[R C-R]

4 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

If you think the Leading should be set in the Character Panel then you are not alone.

I do not think that makes sense because leading is not a per-character attribute. Besides, more often than not, an entire paragraph uses the same leading, so why not set it in the Paragraph panel? Also, consider for instance a newspaper. Different parts of one page in various sections often use different paragraph styles, like to set off scores from other material.

[jackamus]

11 minutes ago, R C-R said:

The reason is because the standards have been broadened, not lowered, due to the increased capabilities of the tools modern technology has made possible. And like with any tools, it is up to the user to learn how to use them correctly for the intended purpose. So for example the purpose of typography in a newspaper is not necessarily the same as in a sales brochure or magazine or novel or technical manual.

RC I feel that you are patronizing me! The way you're using the word 'broadened' is akin to using 'diversify' as a means to force people to accept that which once unacceptable and creating a 'straw man' suggesting they are narrow-minded or blind. I'm afraid I don't fall for that one.

[R C-R]

Just now, jackamus said:

Isn't your last comment a reason for not having separate tabs for Character and Paragraphs? I could live with that one!

Wouldn't that just mix per-character & per-paragraph attributes into one confusing & hard to use panel? Also, don't forget these are not just tabs; they are separate Studio panels that can both be opened as detached panels & viewed at the same time.

[R C-R]

4 minutes ago, jackamus said:

RC I feel that you are patronizing me! The way you're using the word 'broadened' is akin to using 'diversify' as a means to force people to accept that which once unacceptable and creating a 'straw man' suggesting they are narrow-minded or blind. I'm afraid I don't fall for that one.

I am not suggesting in any way that this increased flexibility forces anyone to use any feature they do not want to, only that those who do want to use them can do so.

[thomaso]

On 1/18/2023 at 4:20 PM, Washishu said:

I understand your confusion. And I know exactly what you mean by ‘body size’. The size of the type body as it has been used for almost half a millennium.

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?

It annoyed me in the beginning of DTP that the typometer was not reliable any more because a certain size like 12 pt appeared to be used as relative dimension by font files while a real appeared not to exist or being respected and the former 'body' did not matter.

On 1/18/2023 at 4:20 PM, Washishu said:

I'm completely baffled as to why I would want to ‘override’ the leading (…)
We called this changing the leading; we didn’t call it overriding the leading because that’s not what it was; it was changing the existing leading for a different value.

The comparison seems pointless to me because in lead typesetting all line spacing could get set only line by line (or character if wanted) while it was not possible to adjust the line spacing for a whole paragraph without changing it line by line. So the digital paragraph leading can be a massive advantage, regardless of the possibility of assigning it as a character or line property, too (similar to the old days).

[Old Bruce]

1 hour ago, 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.

[jackamus]

12 hours ago, 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?

It annoyed me in the beginning of DTP that the typometer was not reliable any more because a certain size like 12 pt appeared to be used as relative dimension by font files while a real appeared not to exist or being respected and the former 'body' did not matter.

The comparison seems pointless to me because in lead typesetting all line spacing could get set only line by line (or character if wanted) while it was not possible to adjust the line spacing for a whole paragraph without changing it line by line. So the digital paragraph leading can be a massive advantage, regardless of the possibility of assigning it as a character or line property, too (similar to the old days).

I think there may be a confusion here.

1 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?

2 Digital line leading/line spacing is OK because it makes it possible to change, not just a paragraph leading but a whole book too! DTP does have huge advantages over manual typesetting but without the need to change type measuring standards.

[Washishu]

I find these comments around old v. new technology to be very interesting.

After serving an apprenticeship as a compositor, I made the decision to move into graphics, in the main because I found it more interesting and exciting, but also because by that time it was evident that letterpress was a dying technology and litho was the new-and-improved process and comps would need to find something else to do.

Producing artwork from film-set material (or the old IBM golfball) and Letraset, allowed layouts that I could not have achieved with metal. Digital type took this even further and whilst I admire the structure and formality of, for example, the Swiss typographers, or Jan Tschichold, I also find the typo-chaos of Chris Ashworth and David Carson immensely exciting. I love the questioning—who says that you can’t have negative leading, or that you can’t set text in caps? Once, on a visit to Atlanta, I remember standing at a newsstand browsing the multitude of unfamiliar magazines. Two cool dudes stood nearby and one picked up a copy of RayGun and sung it’s praises to his friend, “It’s terrific. You can’t read a word of it but it’s brilliant”.

With my early experiences of DTP/digital graphics, I recall being both amazed and tremendously excited that I could, in minutes, with a beige-coloured box on my desk, produce artwork that would in the past have taken the labours of three or four skilled craftsmen (or women), labouring for hours perhaps. And artwork that they could never have produced at all too.

[jackamus]

10 hours ago, Washishu said:

I find these comments around old v. new technology to be very interesting.

After serving an apprenticeship as a compositor, I made the decision to move into graphics, in the main because I found it more interesting and exciting, but also because by that time it was evident that letterpress was a dying technology and litho was the new-and-improved process and comps would need to find something else to do.

Producing artwork from film-set material (or the old IBM golfball) and Letraset, allowed layouts that I could not have achieved with metal. Digital type took this even further and whilst I admire the structure and formality of, for example, the Swiss typographers, or Jan Tschichold, I also find the typo-chaos of Chris Ashworth and David Carson immensely exciting. I love the questioning—who says that you can’t have negative leading, or that you can’t set text in caps? Once, on a visit to Atlanta, I remember standing at a newsstand browsing the multitude of unfamiliar magazines. Two cool dudes stood nearby and one picked up a copy of RayGun and sung it’s praises to his friend, “It’s terrific. You can’t read a word of it but it’s brilliant”.

With my early experiences of DTP/digital graphics, I recall being both amazed and tremendously excited that I could, in minutes, with a beige-coloured box on my desk, produce artwork that would in the past have taken the labours of three or four skilled craftsmen (or women), labouring for hours perhaps. And artwork that they could never have produced at all too.

I agree whole heartedly with your sentiments but where I would differ is that, IMHO, that the bulk of typography is in setting large amounts of type e.g. books and magazines etc that do not call for non-standard/non-conventional setting that could be used in every line or parameters. I do think there is a dividing line between the conventional and the non-conventional. That is why I advocate a separate tab for non-conventional typesetting. If you like the tabs could be called 'Standard' and 'Advanced'.

It seems wrong to clutter-up the well-used standard typesetting rules with additional exotic non-standard variations. For example if you wanted to put a line of type using different fonts vertically or at an angle cutting through an existing paragraph, what kind of measurements would you use to achieve it and which of the two current tabs, Character and Paragraph would you place them?

Anyone can dream-up fantastic ideas on typesetting graphics but should the standard rules be made more complex to to include bizarre and rare forms of typesetting?

I believe this is one of modern times' illnesses - too much choice to the point it becomes difficult to make a decision about anything. How much time is wasted on searching through all different options? I don't know how you resolve this as most of the time it is about making money and not offering a reliable service.

I rest my case.

[loukash]

40 minutes ago, jackamus said:

too much choice to the point it becomes difficult to make a decision about anything

And yet thousands of Affinity users come to these forums and cry for more, more and MORE options, features, gimmicks, you name it.
You just can't please everybody.  

[jackamus]

5 minutes ago, loukash said:

And yet thousands of Affinity users come to these forums and cry for more, more and MORE options, features, gimmicks, you name it.
You just can't please everybody.  

I was talking mainly about typesetting but I agree with you about the problem of creating a 'One-glove-fits-all'. Even so there are cases where an 'improvement' could be made in that which is already existing. Some improvements are clearly objective and obvious whilst others are more subjective.

[loukash]

42 minutes ago, jackamus said:

the problem of creating a 'One-glove-fits-all'.

In fact, Serif is already doing the right thing here. Hence we have three Affinity applications, not one, even though under the hood, technically it is de facto just one app with one document format.

As for:

1 hour ago, jackamus said:

a separate tab for non-conventional typesetting

The Character and Paragraph panels are already divided into collapsable sections. So you can simply collaps those sections you deem "non-conventional".

[jackamus]

15 minutes ago, loukash said:

The Character and Paragraph panels are already divided into collapsable sections. So you can simply collaps those sections you deem "non-conventional".

Yes that is another way of putting it. Having conventional and non-conventionale collapsible tabs.