summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/info/digests/texline/no14/alison.tex
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'info/digests/texline/no14/alison.tex')
-rw-r--r--info/digests/texline/no14/alison.tex102
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.