4 ms·

Any amount of overhang is too much. It makes the edge of the container look bumpy and messy. Even if you think it looks stylish, it nonetheless creates a sema

Any amount of overhang is too much. It makes the edge of the container look bumpy and messy. Even if you think it looks stylish, it nonetheless creates a semantic distraction: it makes paragraphs that start with quotation marks look different from paragraphs that don't, when there is no intended difference in meaning. It costs the reader effort to remember that things that look different are actually supposed to be the same, and reduces your dynamic range for visually conveying meaningful differences. If you want to stylize a quotation mark or draw attention to it, make it a special graphic element, clearly outside the container. Be deliberate. But don't violate the container boundary by misaligning a quotation mark that's part of the text flow; that just looks like an error.

DemocracyFTW2 3y ago
> Any amount of overhang is too much. It makes the edge of the container look bumpy and messy Quite the opposite. When you look at most fonts in detail, the topmost parts of e.g. AEO will differ slightly; this is because visually, the pointed top of the A has much less 'mass' than the flat bar that is the top of E; the O will be higher than the top of the E bar as well. The same applies to the left and right edges; it's not a matter of taste, it's physiological. In so far a truly 'optical margin' or whatever Adobe chose to call it would have to take into account the shape of each singly glyph, not only punctuation. Quotes are only always mentioned because they're the most obvious application; full stops, commas, hyphens—all of these dittels have a minimum of 'flesh' and should therefore be pushed further than, say, an X or an M. But I agree that putting a double quote 100% outside the left margin is a bit too much of a good thing; my guess is that it should be more like 50% or somesuch to avoid the "bumpy and messy"ness that you rightly dislike.
- zestyping 3y ago
  The variation in topmost parts that you're describing is called an "overshoot". See the examples in my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38449636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38449636 The idea that overshoots are necessary to create the appearance of equal height is a myth; you can see for yourself that they are clearly visible as irregularities when you run your eye along the baseline, mean line, or cap line.
  - DemocracyFTW2 3y ago
    Man you're doing it wrong. You're like that guy in the old MAD Magazine cartoon who wants to look at the mountains with a binocular but happens to see his wife's face in ultra-macro and goes "eew mountains are gross". It's not like typographers can't see that these orderly lines that you crave are 'overshot' by the glyphs, they sure do! And it's not necessarily an effect that works at constant ratio for every magnification either; the overshoot in a font intended for footnotes is probably different from the overshoot in a font designed to be displayed a meter high on the sides of a van. In your other comment you say it's a 'holdover' from metal type. "Holdover" is such a dog whistle word you know, it always comes from people who want to do away with accumulated wisdom, who claim that "we can do this better now" (i.e. now that we have digitized every aspect of life); they more often than not are not willing and not prepared to recognize Chesterton's fence, they just want to rid the world of any kind of perceived messiness. All lines must be straight. Other than that, there certainly are details in type design that are there solely to accommodate for hot metal typesetting, but overshoot as such is not. And your super-macro-closeups aren't proof of anything, they just demonstrate that overshoots are big enough to be clearly seen when enlarged. Type designers have been aware of this fact for centuries. Also, as for the https://live.staticflickr.com/5300/5482446696_1fa1ff2b45_b.jpg https://live.staticflickr.com/5300/5482446696_1fa1ff2b45_b.j... one, where you write "Hideous. Try to follow that baseline with your eye. It's a roller coaster of chaos." that's just you disliking a type design that is somewhat playful. You prolly dislike cursive handwriting for all the same reasons. You do you, but BRRRR.
    - zestyping 3y ago
      I doubt the designer of the font in that image was trying to make the letters look different sizes for fun. If that was the goal, though — great, mission accomplished! You say it's wrong to judge overshoots by these examples because the text is too large. Okay. Show me an example of appropriately sized type that looks more _uniformly sized_ with overshoots than without, and I'll agree with you. (Remember, the justification for overshoots is uniform optical size, not playfulness!)
      - 3y ago

DemocracyFTW2 3y ago

> Any amount of overhang is too much. It makes the edge of the container look bumpy and messy Quite the opposite. When you look at most fonts in detail, the topmost parts of e.g. AEO will differ slightly; this is because visually, the pointed top of the A has much less 'mass' than the flat bar that is the top of E; the O will be higher than the top of the E bar as well. The same applies to the left and right edges; it's not a matter of taste, it's physiological. In so far a truly 'optical margin' or whatever Adobe chose to call it would have to take into account the shape of each singly glyph, not only punctuation. Quotes are only always mentioned because they're the most obvious application; full stops, commas, hyphens—all of these dittels have a minimum of 'flesh' and should therefore be pushed further than, say, an X or an M. But I agree that putting a double quote 100% outside the left margin is a bit too much of a good thing; my guess is that it should be more like 50% or somesuch to avoid the "bumpy and messy"ness that you rightly dislike.

zestyping 3y ago
The variation in topmost parts that you're describing is called an "overshoot". See the examples in my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38449636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38449636 The idea that overshoots are necessary to create the appearance of equal height is a myth; you can see for yourself that they are clearly visible as irregularities when you run your eye along the baseline, mean line, or cap line.
- DemocracyFTW2 3y ago
  Man you're doing it wrong. You're like that guy in the old MAD Magazine cartoon who wants to look at the mountains with a binocular but happens to see his wife's face in ultra-macro and goes "eew mountains are gross". It's not like typographers can't see that these orderly lines that you crave are 'overshot' by the glyphs, they sure do! And it's not necessarily an effect that works at constant ratio for every magnification either; the overshoot in a font intended for footnotes is probably different from the overshoot in a font designed to be displayed a meter high on the sides of a van. In your other comment you say it's a 'holdover' from metal type. "Holdover" is such a dog whistle word you know, it always comes from people who want to do away with accumulated wisdom, who claim that "we can do this better now" (i.e. now that we have digitized every aspect of life); they more often than not are not willing and not prepared to recognize Chesterton's fence, they just want to rid the world of any kind of perceived messiness. All lines must be straight. Other than that, there certainly are details in type design that are there solely to accommodate for hot metal typesetting, but overshoot as such is not. And your super-macro-closeups aren't proof of anything, they just demonstrate that overshoots are big enough to be clearly seen when enlarged. Type designers have been aware of this fact for centuries. Also, as for the https://live.staticflickr.com/5300/5482446696_1fa1ff2b45_b.jpg https://live.staticflickr.com/5300/5482446696_1fa1ff2b45_b.j... one, where you write "Hideous. Try to follow that baseline with your eye. It's a roller coaster of chaos." that's just you disliking a type design that is somewhat playful. You prolly dislike cursive handwriting for all the same reasons. You do you, but BRRRR.
  - zestyping 3y ago
    I doubt the designer of the font in that image was trying to make the letters look different sizes for fun. If that was the goal, though — great, mission accomplished! You say it's wrong to judge overshoots by these examples because the text is too large. Okay. Show me an example of appropriately sized type that looks more _uniformly sized_ with overshoots than without, and I'll agree with you. (Remember, the justification for overshoots is uniform optical size, not playfulness!)
    - 3y ago