3 ms·
I have no reference for this, but I understand that a significant limitation in the news print industry would be what the Linotype machines could produce. They
by niccl 5y ago
I have no reference for this, but I understand that a significant limitation in the news print industry would be what the Linotype machines could produce. They literally produced a Line-Of-type, cast in lead. You couldn't practically manage slugs of lead that are much longer than the typical newspaper column width, and so they ended up the width they are.
And prior to Linotype, there would have been practical limitations to the forme size that could be easily managed and quickly re-set to fix typos.
So I don't think the newspaper column width was the result of centuries of experimentation into readability. It Just Happened. (Same as the gauge in railways)
- chipotle_coyote 5y agoWhile arguably shorter lines were easier to set and maintain by hand, both hand typesetting and Linotype machines could certainly produce lines of text longer than a typical newspaper column -- and they did: look at any book without columnar text produced during the same period! I think you're right about it being a way to deal with a physical limitation, but not of the physical type -- rather, of the physical paper. If you divide the page vertically into two or three columns (for magazines) or six to nine (for broadsheets), you get an extremely flexible grid to use for fitting stories around one another and around photos and advertisements. Text could be a single column wide or two or even three columns across; headlines can run across just a column or two or across the whole page; you can always find somewhere to put that story that continues from page 1A.