diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'info/digests/texline/no14/alison.tex')
-rw-r--r-- | info/digests/texline/no14/alison.tex | 102 |
1 files changed, 102 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/info/digests/texline/no14/alison.tex b/info/digests/texline/no14/alison.tex new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..3b838096cb --- /dev/null +++ b/info/digests/texline/no14/alison.tex @@ -0,0 +1,102 @@ +\title{Reply}{\rightskip0pt plus1fil\hyphenpenalty100 +Thank you for your generous review of my book {\sl Typefaces for +Desktop Publishing\/} in the last issue of the newsletter. I +hope it will not sound peevish if I take up the issue of +hyphenation which you mention in the review. I think its worth +raising because it is something about which people have very +definite views. Indeed witnesses may be able to tell of +differences of opinion between myself and Paul Stiff, who +designed the book, as we made individual decisions about +hyphenation while working on the make up of the pages (although +those who know us both may not be at all surprised at this). And +anyone who has been involved in editorial work will know that +hyphenation decisions can arouse great passion in the hearts of +authors, whose natural concern is that their words be displayed +in the best manner possible. + +That brings me to the first point. If you opt for hyphenation +(in either justified or unjustified text) its unwise to rely on +the hyphenation decisions made by your software. They will do as a +first pass, but you need to check the decisions against a +hyphenation dictionary, unless you have particularly good reason +to be confident in your software. In other words, you have to +override many of the software's decisions. Laborious, but +necessary. Certainly I would not trust the hyphenation decisions +of QuarkXPress, either in its previous or present version (just +as I would not rely on a spelling checker, without checking a +document myself). So any grouses about the hyphenation in my +book have to be addressed to me, and not to Quark. + +On to the bigger issue of whether or not to hyphenate +unjustified text. There are two preferences at work here, both +of which can be supported by arguments about enhancing the +readability of the text. But the preferences may also be founded +on what we have grown accustomed to, and what we find pleasing +aesthetically. Hyphenators will argue that using hyphenation to +maintain a relatively smooth, and predictable, right-hand margin +is likely to contribute to the efficiency of the saccadic +movements of the eye, that underlie reading. Smoothing the +right-hand margin seems especially important in narrow columns, +where the visual impact of varying line endings can be dramatic. +(Aesthetic sub-text: hyphenators like smooth right-hand margins, +and are not squeamish about breaking up words, within limits.) +Non-hyphenators will argue that hyphenation breaks up the +profiles of words, which are so vital to word perception in +reading, and so is likely to disrupt reading processes. +(Aesthetic sub-text: non-hyphenators just don't like breaking up +words.) + +The `truth' probably lies somewhere between the two: a smooth +right-hand margin helps, and a degree of hyphenation to bring +this about can be tolerated, but excessive disruption of words +through hyphenation can get in the way of efficient reading. + +Its always hard to pitch the results of readability testing +against preferences based on experience of one particular way of +working. Nevertheless, for the record, can I quote research by +Jim Hartley and Peter Burnhill (respectively, a psychologist and +a typographer)? In a pilot study, they found that hyphenation +at every line ending, within a single page text, slowed down +reading for eight out of ten people tested, compared to a single +page text with no hyphenation (none of us will be surprised at +this). They then tested reading speed and comprehension of text, +without hyphenation, and of text with hyphenation on roughly 33\% +of line endings, and found no significant difference between the +two conditions. None of the people tested noticed the difference +in hyphenation between the two texts they had read, until it was +pointed out to them. When they were shown the two texts side by +side, significantly more said they preferred the un-hyphenated +text to the hyphenated text (24 to 10, with a further 8 +expressing no preference). Just one of many cases in typographic +research when preference does not map on to performance (another +classic is the serif versus sans serif issue). + +As far as I know, no one has done eye-movement studies of the +effects of justification and hyphenation on reading. In fact I +think it might be impossible to prepare materials that would +allow you to isolate those variables, given the sensitivity of +eye movements to other factors that would co-vary with them. But +that's another story. +In sanguine mood (or maybe feeling more vulnerable than I will +admit), I checked a few sample pages of my book and found (phew) +that hyphenation is well within Hartley and Burnhill's 33\% +range. For the non-hyphenator, however, reading hyphenated text +can be like trying not to think of pink elephants once someone +has reminded you not to do so: if you find hyphenation irksome, +every instance will leap out of the page at you. + +Well, I have gone on at length. Someone who goes on at greater +length, and makes an engaging read, is Ronald McIntosh, in his +book Hyphenation. I recommend it to hyphenators and non-hyphenators alike. + +} + +{\frenchspacing\parindent0pt +\everypar{\hangindent1.5em\hangafter1} + + +J. Hartley, and P. Burnhill. Experiments with unjustified +text. Visible Language, 5(3), 1971. + +R. McIntosh. Hyphenation. Bradford: Bradford Computer +Hyphenation, 1990. |