7 ms·

If typesetting aesthetics are actually important to the document you're creating, you should be using software like LaTeX that figures out all the spacing for y

by habitue 13y ago

If typesetting aesthetics are actually important to the document you're creating, you should be using software like LaTeX that figures out all the spacing for you. If you're typing up a word document for functional usage, it doesn't matter how many spaces you put in there (Yes, I am giving you permission to go all e.e. cummings in your emails)

burgerz 13y ago
>that figures out all the spacing for you What are you even talking about? Yes Word figures out spacing for you too.
- realo 13y ago
  Typography is complex and Word is quite inadequate for that. For example, take the simple subject of rivers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_(typography) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_(typography) LaTex knows about those and will try to avoid them. Latex provides end results which are acceptable, typography-wise. Word is merely a word processor and cannot be trusted to produce the actual end result.
  - joosters 13y ago
    Word does just fine, thanks very much. My evidence: the millions of satisfied (or uncaring) Word users.
    - peterkelly 13y ago
      Word does "just fine" in the same sense that cheap wine or non-DSLR cameras do "just fine" for the majority of people. But that's a separate issue to quality.
      - antiterra 13y ago
        Non-sequitur. There are plenty of non-DSLR tools for photography (TLR, rangefinders, large-format film) that are more than "just fine, and even within the world of digital, your average prosumer DSLR can't do the same thing as a setup with a medium format digital back. Give up the snobbery, DSLR does not necessarily equate to quality or superiority.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
    - jeltz 13y ago
      But most of them do not use it and expect to get good typography. Word is usually used for things where proper typography does not matter, things that in the past were written on type writers.
  - specialist 13y ago
    I enjoyed (at the time) technical writing using WordPerfect, FrameMaker, and InDesign. Getting the typography, page breaks, word wrap just so is very satisfying. Driving FrameMaker was a lot like programming, in the level of control and precision. Still miss it. I was ambivalent towards PageMaker. Never used Quark for work, though I've met many fans. I reserve special loathing for Word. Word 6 was pretty good, and I used it enthusiastically. But everything since has been user hostile. Getting the document you want is like fighting a surly baboon with Tourette's syndrome. You just have no idea what's going to be printed. There's no way to predict cause and effect (so you end up using a very limited set of features). And god help you if you change anything about your install (eg open the same doc on another computer, upgrade a driver).
  - jahewson 13y ago
    No, LaTeX does not know anything about rivers and has no detection mechanisms for them. The line-breaking/spacing algorithms in TeX are just to old for that level of computational intensity. There are some LuaTeX packages which can detect, but not fix, rivers, though their scalability is questionable.
- latk 13y ago
  What are you talking about? Word does not manage spacing (and other layout) on the level LaTeX does. Word processors usually allow you to type multiple adjacent spaces, which does not make any typographic sense. Instead, LaTeX uses spaces of different variable widths and heights. In some configurations, it will follow the double-width space after a sentence-convention.
smalltalk 13y ago
So does InDesign, which uses the TeX algorithm, QuarkXPress, and just about any other application that lays out text. Even Word! Think of that! A program far more suited to laying out a visual medium (i.e., a visual program) could be as good or better than a 35 year old programming language that has a default typeface that's pretty much the most hideous ever designed by humankind (Knuth couldn't have done a worse job on Computer Modern).
alayne 13y ago
I think LaTeX is overprescribed. It's great for academic papers, but a lot of the output from canned styles I see is lacking. Don't expect to get perfect typography if you don't understand the desired proportions between type size and spacing (see for example Bringhurst). LaTex is difficult to use if you are new to it or trying to do something custom. Personally, I'd much rather use commercial software like InDesign/QuarkXPress and never touch LaTeX again. With that software, you can manually and visually tweak things like word spacing for particular paragraphs to solve problems like rivers. Of course InDesign will not automatically make documents look nice either, but it's easier to do if you know what you're trying to achieve. This is the kind of software used for modern magazine layout. edit: smalltalk below also posted a similar reply as I was typing this, but is hellbanned
- latk 13y ago
  You are correct in stating that LaTeX is no silver bullet. The clear disadvantage of LaTeX is the tweak-recompile cycle, whereas graphical tools have instant feedback which is more suitable for design. But for automated typography (≠ design), it is still unsurpassed after all those years. The default LaTeX styles are still way prettier and easier to read than the random muck (12pt Times, small margins) that would be more widespread otherwise. For scientific papers this is truly awesome, especially when the author does not care about typography. But you are right, LaTeX is not the correct tool for every job.
  - ijk 13y ago
    Now, if we can just get LaTex with instant feedback, we can approach the best of both worlds.
    - LeonidasXIV 13y ago
      I use latexmk and coupled with a script which uses inotifywait. Evice automatically reloads the PDF on changes, so I get semi-instant feedback. Works okay for me.
      - 13y ago
jessriedel 13y ago
In addition, LaTeX is clear that the preferred separation after a sentence is 1.5 spaces. The End.
- Raphael 13y ago
  What a compromise.
- lelf 13y ago
  No, it's not. It is normal space + extra space ± stretch’/shrink’ where spaces depend on font, stretch’ and shrink’ depend on normal stretch/shrink and space factor. Not to mention \frenchspacing (TLDR: it's also language-dependend)
  - SeanLuke 13y ago
    You're being pedantic in muddying things with extra variables, namely the adjustment due to full justification. Let's simplify things and just consider ragged right. In this context, TeX is indeed approximately 1.5 spaces after a period, except for \frenchspacing, which uses 1 space. AFAIK, the reason TeX uses this default spacing is because Don thought it looked good.
- pseut 13y ago
  I always use \frenchspacing and make it 1.

by habitue 13y ago

burgerz 13y ago

>that figures out all the spacing for you What are you even talking about? Yes Word figures out spacing for you too.

realo 13y ago
Typography is complex and Word is quite inadequate for that. For example, take the simple subject of rivers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_(typography) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_(typography) LaTex knows about those and will try to avoid them. Latex provides end results which are acceptable, typography-wise. Word is merely a word processor and cannot be trusted to produce the actual end result.
- joosters 13y ago
  Word does just fine, thanks very much. My evidence: the millions of satisfied (or uncaring) Word users.
  - peterkelly 13y ago
    Word does "just fine" in the same sense that cheap wine or non-DSLR cameras do "just fine" for the majority of people. But that's a separate issue to quality.
    - antiterra 13y ago
      Non-sequitur. There are plenty of non-DSLR tools for photography (TLR, rangefinders, large-format film) that are more than "just fine, and even within the world of digital, your average prosumer DSLR can't do the same thing as a setup with a medium format digital back. Give up the snobbery, DSLR does not necessarily equate to quality or superiority.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
  - jeltz 13y ago
    But most of them do not use it and expect to get good typography. Word is usually used for things where proper typography does not matter, things that in the past were written on type writers.
- specialist 13y ago
  I enjoyed (at the time) technical writing using WordPerfect, FrameMaker, and InDesign. Getting the typography, page breaks, word wrap just so is very satisfying. Driving FrameMaker was a lot like programming, in the level of control and precision. Still miss it. I was ambivalent towards PageMaker. Never used Quark for work, though I've met many fans. I reserve special loathing for Word. Word 6 was pretty good, and I used it enthusiastically. But everything since has been user hostile. Getting the document you want is like fighting a surly baboon with Tourette's syndrome. You just have no idea what's going to be printed. There's no way to predict cause and effect (so you end up using a very limited set of features). And god help you if you change anything about your install (eg open the same doc on another computer, upgrade a driver).
- jahewson 13y ago
  No, LaTeX does not know anything about rivers and has no detection mechanisms for them. The line-breaking/spacing algorithms in TeX are just to old for that level of computational intensity. There are some LuaTeX packages which can detect, but not fix, rivers, though their scalability is questionable.
latk 13y ago
What are you talking about? Word does not manage spacing (and other layout) on the level LaTeX does. Word processors usually allow you to type multiple adjacent spaces, which does not make any typographic sense. Instead, LaTeX uses spaces of different variable widths and heights. In some configurations, it will follow the double-width space after a sentence-convention.

smalltalk 13y ago

So does InDesign, which uses the TeX algorithm, QuarkXPress, and just about any other application that lays out text. Even Word! Think of that! A program far more suited to laying out a visual medium (i.e., a visual program) could be as good or better than a 35 year old programming language that has a default typeface that's pretty much the most hideous ever designed by humankind (Knuth couldn't have done a worse job on Computer Modern).

alayne 13y ago

I think LaTeX is overprescribed. It's great for academic papers, but a lot of the output from canned styles I see is lacking. Don't expect to get perfect typography if you don't understand the desired proportions between type size and spacing (see for example Bringhurst). LaTex is difficult to use if you are new to it or trying to do something custom. Personally, I'd much rather use commercial software like InDesign/QuarkXPress and never touch LaTeX again. With that software, you can manually and visually tweak things like word spacing for particular paragraphs to solve problems like rivers. Of course InDesign will not automatically make documents look nice either, but it's easier to do if you know what you're trying to achieve. This is the kind of software used for modern magazine layout. edit: smalltalk below also posted a similar reply as I was typing this, but is hellbanned

latk 13y ago
You are correct in stating that LaTeX is no silver bullet. The clear disadvantage of LaTeX is the tweak-recompile cycle, whereas graphical tools have instant feedback which is more suitable for design. But for automated typography (≠ design), it is still unsurpassed after all those years. The default LaTeX styles are still way prettier and easier to read than the random muck (12pt Times, small margins) that would be more widespread otherwise. For scientific papers this is truly awesome, especially when the author does not care about typography. But you are right, LaTeX is not the correct tool for every job.
- ijk 13y ago
  Now, if we can just get LaTex with instant feedback, we can approach the best of both worlds.
  - LeonidasXIV 13y ago
    I use latexmk and coupled with a script which uses inotifywait. Evice automatically reloads the PDF on changes, so I get semi-instant feedback. Works okay for me.
    - 13y ago

jessriedel 13y ago

In addition, LaTeX is clear that the preferred separation after a sentence is 1.5 spaces. The End.

Raphael 13y ago
What a compromise.
lelf 13y ago
No, it's not. It is normal space + extra space ± stretch’/shrink’ where spaces depend on font, stretch’ and shrink’ depend on normal stretch/shrink and space factor. Not to mention \frenchspacing (TLDR: it's also language-dependend)
- SeanLuke 13y ago
  You're being pedantic in muddying things with extra variables, namely the adjustment due to full justification. Let's simplify things and just consider ragged right. In this context, TeX is indeed approximately 1.5 spaces after a period, except for \frenchspacing, which uses 1 space. AFAIK, the reason TeX uses this default spacing is because Don thought it looked good.
pseut 13y ago
I always use \frenchspacing and make it 1.