diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'info/digests/texline/no8/review.tex')
-rw-r--r-- | info/digests/texline/no8/review.tex | 105 |
1 files changed, 105 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/info/digests/texline/no8/review.tex b/info/digests/texline/no8/review.tex new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..ffde5ce315 --- /dev/null +++ b/info/digests/texline/no8/review.tex @@ -0,0 +1,105 @@ +\centerline{\bf Book Review} +\medskip +\noindent {\it Digital Typography, An Introduction to Type and Composition for +Computer System Design, Richard Rubinstein, 340pp, +Addison Wesley Publishing Company, \quid26.95, {\sc isbn:} +0 201 17633 5.} +\smallskip +\noindent +From the Preface (and the subtitle, `An Introduction to Type and Composition for +Computer System Design') this book would seem to have a +rather specialised and limited readership. If this is the +intent, it is a great pity, since almost anyone with any +concern or interest in typography, let alone digital +typography (can you separate them now?) will find much that +is stimulating and valuable in this book. True, it has its +faults (the selection of Goudy Old Style for what is +essentially a text book). The rather haphazard structure is +due in part to the immature nature of the subject. It +brings together a wealth of material from quite varied +sources, presenting them in a form that most of us would +find easy and straightforward to assimilate. + +Rubinstein, unlike many typographers with a strict art and design background +does not appeal immediately to aesthetics, unless he can underpin them with a +few numbers (and even some science). Take the issue of readibility of serif and +sans serif typefaces (forgetting along the way the `serifs lead the eye' +nonsense): the spatial sensitivity of the eye peaks at about 6--8 cycles per +degree of visual angle (trust me). If we look at the power spectrum of printed +text (in other words, generated from the alternation of black and white), a +Times style typeface (as an example of sans serif) peaks at about 8 cycles per +degree, and Helvtica at about 7 cycles per degree. Clearly, +both values fall within the range of sensitivity, but +Helvtica has a pronounced subsidiary peak at about +12--14 cycles per degree --- a higher frequency harmonic +which tends to confuse and confound. The Times spectrum is +clearer and has less power distributed in such harmonics. A +really dire example is something like a monospaced Courier, +which has a whole series of regularly spaced harmonics. +Although not a point which Rubinstein really makes, my +feeling was that the spikey nature of the spectra were +closely correlated with readibility. So what do serifs do? +Consider a group of letters in a word like `minute': The +serifs enable the interletter spacing in the pairs `mi', +`in' and so on to remain about constant and to be about the +same as the distances between the verical stems of the `m', +`n', etc. If we then look at the same situation in a sans +serif `{\sans minute}', we can see that the inter letter +spacings are much smaller, contributing to the subsidiary +peak in the power spectrum. At least, that's my guess. + +This discussion of the physiology of the eye is also used to explain the +necessity of scanning at very high resolutions in order to be able to +re-present the information at (say) 300\,dpi. In order to account for +information at the eye's limit of sensitivity (about 60 cycles per degree), +Rubinstein considers a scanning resolution of 1200 lines per inch is needed. + +A large proportion of the book is given over to a discussion of the technical +characteristics of screens, marking engines and all the other physical +bits and pieces we use. This is clearly reflected in the problems of matching +screen output and page output. One rather fascinating example showed how it is +possible to exploit the characteristics of charge deposition from a laser +printer in order to create sharp corners, although a naive approach would have +led to any corners being rounded as charge leaked away. Eventually this leads +back to real typefaces, which are (or should be) designed to take into account +the characteristics of the output environment --- paper, inks, printing +pressure etc. Rubinstein points out that type wears out; if we copy an old +typeface, we may be copying from old founts, or from old printed marks (seldom +will we ever have the original drawings) --- only one realisation of the +typefaces; and the creator will have designed his typeface to account for +current papers and inks --- is there any point trying to turn (say) Garamond or +Bodoni into a digital typeface? +Even more modern typefaces like Zapf's Optima are not necessarily rendered +easily into a digital form. Optima is `characterised by subtle changes in width +and near-vertical edges' which are `difficult to represent digitally' (tell +that to Adobe). + +Rubinstein also considers other topics, including, greyscale +fonts, the typographic terms `colour', `weight', `contrast' +and `bright', and gives a very good example of the +difficulties inherent in type design on a small grid. +Ennumerating the possible weights and contrasts of designs +based on a 12 pixel high cell, he shows that all +possibilities fall outside the generally accepted standards +of weight and contrast.This is not the end of the story, +since greyscale fonts could help here, and are starting to +appear. + +The traditional aspects of kerning (pairwise or in context --- words like DAWN +are not easily kerned, if approached in a pairwise fashion). He has some of the +usual guidelines about layout, and a useful discusison about hyphenation and +rivers. + +The book is quite nicely rounded out by an Appendix which suggested avenues of +future research and development. One begins ``create a set of \TeX\ +macros\dots'' Hmm. + +The apparent haphazard structure of the book is reflection of the many +apparently disparate topics which it covers. It may well be the only book which +has seriously tried to approach current typography in this technological way, +appealing to verifiable observation, rather than to opinion and dogma. I've heard +it described as `typographically naive', but until there are intelligible, +factual, scientific books which are typographically astute, it will be an +extremely useful source. +\smallskip +\rightline{\sl Malcolm Clark} |