1,5x line distance in Publisher doesn't work

[affinota]

Hey,

I need 1,5 x line distance in Arial 11 and get false result.

If I take 150 "% in the height", I get 16,5 pt.

If I take multiple and 1,5, I get 17 pt. (why??)

If I just take Arial 11 1,5 times, I get 16,5.

 

But anyway the 1,5 x line distance in word is much more than the result of affinity publisher.

It look something like double in affinity.

Why that??

 

Cheers

affinota

[MikeTO]

Hi @affinota Affinity uses a multiple of the font's "default leading" and not the font size. I don't recommend using Affinity's Default or Multiple leading options because default leading isn't consistently defined even in fonts from major commercial font foundries. I think Affinity's choice of using default leading is admirable, this is the way fonts are supposed to be used, but it just doesn't work in a predictable way.

I recommend you use the Exactly or % Height options. I included these recommendations in my Publisher manual (see the Spacing section in the Basic Text chapter) which you can download free from this forum using the link in my signature below.

Cheers

 

 

[thomaso]

As Mike mentioned, the leading can vary between different fonts. For instance:

In this long thread, several aspects of line spacing and possible reasons such as font-designer and layout software were discussed:

[affinota]

maybe its something usual for pros, but for me its just confusing. So I can not just have 1,5x line spacing for scientific work? If its the fact, then publisher can not be used for study purposes.

[MikeTO]

4 minutes ago, affinota said:

maybe its something usual for pros, but for me its just confusing. So I can not just have 1,5x line spacing for scientific work? If its the fact, then publisher can not be used for study purposes.

You can use Multiple 1.5, but just be aware that you won't necessarily get the same spacing as MS Word or other apps, and if you change the font family the spacing could change.

[affinota]

1 minute ago, MikeTO said:

You can use Multiple 1.5, but just be aware that you won't necessarily get the same spacing as MS Word or other apps

the thing is, I can not use this at all, because it gives me not the necessary spacing for the university requirements. Don't understand why such standard things for study needs are so complicated. So as I understand, I must use openoffice or word for this requirements.

[MikeTO]

4 minutes ago, affinota said:

the thing is, I can not use this at all, because it gives me not the necessary spacing for the university requirements. Don't understand why such standard things for study needs are so complicated. So as I understand, I must use openoffice or word for this requirements.

Publisher isn't a word processor but it's not hard to replicate what Microsoft Word does and still keep it simple - just use Exactly and set Leading to 1.8 times the font size. If your font size is 12 pt then you'd use Exactly 21.6 pt leading.

Microsoft Word uses 120% of the font size for its "single" or "1.0" line spacing options. If the font size is 12 pt, then the leading (the space between the baselines of text) is really 14.4 pt. For 1.5 line spacing, it adds 50% more so 12 pt type would have leading of 21.6 pt. To find the Exact leading equivalent of Word, you just multiply its fixed 120% leading times 1.5 which yields 180%. So multiplying the font size by 1.8 gives you the leading you need.

[thomaso]

22 minutes ago, affinota said:

it gives me not the necessary spacing for the university requirements. Don't understand why such standard things for study needs are so complicated.

The point is that line spacing as "Multiple 1.5" or "1.5x" is not standardized and can vary by font, app or system. If you use 1.5x, you meet the university's requirements. If they require a more precise, unambiguous line spacing, such as an absolute, not relative, value in a physical unit like pt or mm then you can use that.

It appears odd not to use a certain application because it's line spacing set as 1.5x differs from the spacing on other computers. If you prefer to use the identical leading like  Word you could check its equivalent of 1.5x in pt and use that as your absolute, not percentage value.

[affinota]

11 minutes ago, MikeTO said:

So multiplying the font size by 1.8 gives you the leading you need.

ok, thanks, I will try that and wait what the university will say about it. Arial 11 gives me with 1,8x 20,4 spacing.

8 minutes ago, thomaso said:

you could check its equivalent of 1.5x in pt and use that as your absolute, not procentual value

I use openoffice and I don't know, where I can look for the pts for spacing.

But the 1,8x looks for me close to the result in openoffice.

[thomaso]

16 minutes ago, affinota said:

I use openoffice and I don't know, where I can look for the pts for spacing.

But the 1,8x looks for me close to the result in openoffice.

I am not familiar with the interface of any word processor  – but if I create some text in Word with leading 1.5x and paste it into a text frame in APub the text appears with same styling (fonts, sizes etc) and APub's Paragraph Panel shows the leading for the pasted 1.5x as "[18 pt]", and if I click the value it displays "1.5".

Another way could be via screenshot or exported PDF: Use them in APub to find the line spacing for a text frame that matches these templates in the background.

[MikeTO]

2 hours ago, thomaso said:

I am not familiar with the interface of any word processor  – but if I create some text in Word with leading 1.5x and paste it into a text frame in APub the text appears with same styling (fonts, sizes etc) and APub's Paragraph Panel shows the leading for the pasted 1.5x as "[18 pt]", and if I click the value it displays "1.5".

Another way could be via screenshot or exported PDF: Use them in APub to find the line spacing for a text frame that matches these templates in the background.

It won't always be [18 pt], it depends on the font. For example, consider 12 pt text in Microsoft Word with 1.5 line spacing. The effective exact leading will be 21.6 pt because Word uses 120% of the font size for single line spacing and 12 * 1.2 * 1.5 = 21.6. When you paste that into Publisher, you will get Multiple 1.5 but the effective leading will vary depending on the font. For example, if you paste in some text formatted in Arial, Helvetica, and Helvetica Neue (fonts included with macOS), the leading will be [18.6], [18], and [18.5], respectively. It won't be 21.6 like it is in Word.

It's better to just multiply the font size by 1.2 and multiply that by the line spacing in Word, i.e., 1.5. That will give you the precise Exactly leading to enter into Publisher.

[thomaso]

3 hours ago, MikeTO said:

It won't always be [18 pt], it depends on the font. For example, consider 12 pt text in Microsoft Word with 1.5 line spacing. The effective exact leading will be 21.6 pt because Word uses 120% of the font size for single line spacing and 12 * 1.2 * 1.5 = 21.6.

I was aware that a relative leading (% or 1.x) depends on the font. But I did not check beforehand that when pasting text from Word into APub, the line spacing gets messed up and causes confusion: APub displays the value "Multiple 1.5" correctly but calculates its equivalent in pt differently and with a different result than Word. Tricky.

[affinota]

10 hours ago, MikeTO said:

Word uses 120% of the font size for single line spacing and 12 * 1.2 * 1.5 = 21.6

ah, now I understand it! Thanks!

Do you know how much % does openoffice use for single lines?

 

VERY tricky all that! The university stuff don't know such things, they want just 1,5 line spacing.... thats somehow funny.

[thomaso]

36 minutes ago, affinota said:

The university stuff don't know such things, they want just 1,5 line spacing.... thats somehow funny.

It depends on what purpose they are setting their conditions for. Didn't they require a certain font size, too? And certain margins? With a clear font size + line spacing they may get the same number of lines per page from every author and, if printed, space for potential comments. If they also define the margins they can achieve a same number of characters per page and thus achieve a same text length from all authors for a certain number of pages.

[walt.farrell]

3 hours ago, affinota said:

Do you know how much % does openoffice use for single lines?

They should be matching Word, to maintain compatibility. But I don't know for sure.

[MikeTO]

4 hours ago, affinota said:

Do you know how much % does openoffice use for single lines?

Microsoft Word and LibreOffice both use 120% default leading for 1.0 line spacing. They're the same as InDesign's default. I didn't test Google Docs but I assume it's the same.

Apple Pages works similarly to Affinity, relying on the font's default leading instead of a hardcoded value.

[thomaso]

51 minutes ago, MikeTO said:

Microsoft Word and LibreOffice both use 120% default leading for 1.0 line spacing. They're the same as InDesign's default. (…)

Apple Pages works similarly to Affinity, relying on the font's default leading instead of a hardcoded value.

Would you consider to extend the "Tip" in the "Space" chapter of your manual with additional info you mentioned in this thread? Quite a few questions in this forum may imply that Affinity is used by more 'non-designers' but word processor users than InDesign for instance. For those a comparison of the spacing default with text processor apps may be useful, too.

BTW, the terms "Default" versus "Auto" may be misleading in the current "Tip": Both apps, Affinity and Indesign, have a “default” and an “automatic" line spacing stored in their default paragraph style. While both apps allow customization of the "Default" leading, only Affinity's "Auto" leading is font-dependent, and only ID's "Auto" leading can be customized, additionally to ID's "Default" leading. – So I think the Tip should start with the comparison of both Auto leadings, not of Default versus Auto leading.

"The Auto leading option of Affinity works very differently than the Auto leading option in Adobe InDesign which…"

[MikeTO]

@thomaso Thank you, I'll take a look at that and add more information. And maybe I'll add a cross-reference to it from the importing text from a word processor section, too.

Cheers

[MikeTO]

FYI I tested Google Docs and it works similarly to Affinity and Apple Pages, although Publisher is using different values from the font than Google and Apple. The point is that all three apps set leading depending on the font and not a fixed value. This just reinforces the point that Publisher users should use Exactly or % Height instead of Default.

I'll need to keep the Auto and Default terms as is - Affinity uses the term Default in the user interface, not Auto, while Adobe uses the term Auto in the user interface, not Default. I don't want to confuse users by writing "The Auto leading of Affinity..."

[MikeW]

56 minutes ago, MikeTO said:

... The point is that all three apps set leading depending on the font and not a fixed value. This just reinforces the point that Publisher users should use Exactly or % Height instead of Default. ...

If Affinity Publisher actually, truly, used the values in the font, APub users wouldn't need to use exactly/percent instead of Default. Thanks for pointing out, and documenting, this deficiency in this and the other thread.

[walt.farrell]

43 minutes ago, MikeW said:

If Affinity Publisher actually, truly, used the values in the font, APub users wouldn't need to use exactly/percent instead of Default. Thanks for pointing out, and documenting, this deficiency in this and the other thread.

The problem is that some other applications use a fixed value like 120% instead of using the values from the font, isn't it?

I don't think anything in the explanations provided so far demonstrates that Affinity doesn't use the values from the fonts.

[thomaso]

33 minutes ago, MikeTO said:

I'll need to keep the Auto and Default terms as is - Affinity uses the term Default in the user interface, not Auto, while Adobe uses the term Auto in the user interface, not Default. I don't want to confuse users by writing "The Auto leading of Affinity..."

You are right, sorry! Unfortunately I had the Affinity term for "Leading Override" in mind (while I am not used to the "Default" paragraph leading).

Yes, it is indeed difficult to text the "Tip" unambiguously. Even for Affinity alone there are two understandings of "Default" paragraph leading: one as the app default (-> [No Style]) and the other individually for every text style, respectively every font actually, and thus potentially a bunch of multiple "Default" leadings within one document, apart from the one which is stored with other object defaults and used in [No Style].

Perhaps a table could simplify the wording and increase the overview…

[MikeW]

9 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

The problem is that some other applications use a fixed value like 120% instead of using the values from the font, isn't it?

I don't think anything in the explanations provided so far demonstrates that Affinity doesn't use the values from the fonts.

Whatever values Serif is using are made up values. The defaults in ID/QXP are 120% of font size but can be changed to whatever, including 0 (zero).

The real issue is what values are being used to calculate the "starting value." @MikeTO has reversed engineered what seem to be how Serif is calculating Default leading--but as far as I know, Serif has not commented as to how they are calculating the Default Leading entry. But, whatever value is being used, it results in text set way too tight.

I designed the font below. I know how line spacing should appear.

APub and its way too tight for Default (which, for this font Default = 13.4pt). Not the second line clash of the diacritic over the D character:

Here is QXP using 120% as installed:

And here I changed to 0% leading:

The gap in my last screen shot, as near as I can measure it, works out to my line gap value of 242 units as set in the font.

So, again, I know exactly what QXP is using for its calculations. I can ferret out how/why ID is using for values under its 120%/0% settings. And, while I can rationalize how Serif is arriving at its values for calculating Default leading (by using Mike's calculations), that "understanding" is based upon reverse engineering guesses.

If Serif really wanted to use the "default" in a font, there are more accurate values to base the calculation on.

[kenmcd]

5 minutes ago, MikeW said:

Whatever values Serif is using are made up values.

No. They are using the vertical metrics from inside the font.
And which set of metrics used can change based on whether the Use Typo Metrics flag is set in the font.

What font are you using above?
We can calculate the actual default leading % values.
Then if you set the point size to 10pts you will see the calculated default leading point size matches the calculations from the font.

So what font are you using for your tests?

Note: regarding ID - my understanding the default leading is 120% of the set point size, and they always use the Typo vertical metrics, if available, regardless of the Use Typo Metrics setting inside the font.

Affinity follows the Use Typo Metrics setting, so if it is not set, as is the case in Arial, then the vertical metrics used on Windows vs. macOS may be different.
So in that case the basis for any % calculation may be different.
Which results in different "leading" on different operating systems, or applications.
Adding to the fun is that Microsoft sometimes has different vertical metrics in the same-name fonts they ship for Windows and the fonts they ship for macOS.

The only way to assure getting the same line-height/leading cross-platform, and across applications is to use a fixed point size.

[MikeW]

It's not a font you have nor can obtain. 

Use typo metrics is on. There is a screenshot of the metrics in the linked thread on page 2 iirc. I'm using a mobile phone right now and grabbing screenshots is too much bother but I can repost in a bit...I've just started cooking down some tomatoes for a lasagna.