7 ms·

> I will note the author appears to have aesthetic reasons to reject creating a PDF/e-book/etc version of the book, despite people literally offering him money

by gioele 12y ago

> I will note the author appears to have aesthetic reasons to reject creating a PDF/e-book/etc version of the book, despite people literally offering him money to do so I am one of those that offered money to buy the ePub version of his book. I think the root issue here can be found in this sentence: «If you can show me an e-book format that gives me the same control over typography and layout that I can get in a web browser, I’ll consider it. As far as I know, it doesn’t exist.» So the author thinks that the typography of the book is important in itself. I see his point, but nevertheless I find _the content_ more important than the presentation. Also, the author uses the expression "control over typography and layout that I can get in a web browser". _A_ web browser? There are hundreds of possible web browser/OS combinations out there. For example, for the Windows users, the version of OS will drastically influence the way fonts are shown. In the ebook world, once you have tested with Kindle, iBooks and Kobo you have covered a huge share of users. You can also see that the author is more interested in typography than HTML. He uses `<root><topic>bar</topic><root>` instead of `<h1>` and `<div class="subhead">foo</div>` instead of `<h2>`. So being able to perfectly control typography is paramount but publishing completely valid and meaningful HTML is not that important?

newscracker 12y ago
I got a similar response too and I gave up. I don't have, and don't want, to connect to read anything longer than a page or two. I get distracted the moment I have a web browser and connectivity. :) So while online books don't work well for me, eBooks on the other hand provide me a way of engaging in content on a device of my choice without having to be connected all the time and also devote my attention better to the content. Also, why should I "show an e-book format that gives control over typography"? That's like saying, "read it on my terms if you want or just don't."
theoh 12y ago
I got a bad impression from a superficial look at the book. The typography is clear and clean enough but I saw three different ways of rendering links (no indication (in the contents section), ALL CAPS (in the body text) and lastly preceded by a diamond character (some other context)). Taken in conjunction with his choice of directory structure for the pages of the book (completely flat) I get the impression that he is not interested in managing compex information in a sane manner, but merely in making text look good. Disappointing.
- mechanical_fish 12y ago
  In fact, those links look different because they are semantically distinct, and the underlying logic becomes clear as you read. The small-caps links are inline references to other sections of the same book; their distinct typesetting distinguishes them from mere text. Because everything in the table of contents is a link to part of the book, these links are not set in small caps or otherwise distinguished — that's a potentially confusing design choice in theory, but I can't complain because it was obvious enough to me from the context that I should try tapping something. The diamonds are outbound links to other sites. Given that this is a coherent book and not a collection of random posts, this distinction is handy: while reading Butterick, I am more likely to click a link to more Butterick than to click an outbound link which will cause me to lose my train of thought.
  - theoh 12y ago
    I genuinely hadn't noticed the meaning of the diamond links - I wasn't just making a cheap shot. In fact they are confusingly diverse: his own mailto: link is a diamond link, as is this URL on the Acknowledgements page: http://practicaltypography.com/contact.html http://practicaltypography.com/contact.html It's totally acceptable, if a bit Knuthian, to expect a reader to learn a few typographic conventions, but they should be well considered. Don't make the reader hover to find which words are part of a given link. It is probably worth remembering (as this is HN) that design is partly a personal and subjective thing. I am fairly interested in typography but I wouldn't hold my opinions out as the one right way to do things. One thing I have never thought while studying typography is "I wish this author was more pedantic and conventional, I don't know, maybe like a lawyer?".
mattlutze 12y ago
It surprises me, a bit, how many people don't seem to understand the contradiction presented by publishing a book on typography through a platform that doesn't allow control over typography. The issue isn't aesthetic, it's fundamental. And to note, I'm not sure anyone's ever blamed HTML with being designed to consider typography, beyond some basic contextual tags.

by gioele 12y ago

newscracker 12y ago

I got a similar response too and I gave up. I don't have, and don't want, to connect to read anything longer than a page or two. I get distracted the moment I have a web browser and connectivity. :) So while online books don't work well for me, eBooks on the other hand provide me a way of engaging in content on a device of my choice without having to be connected all the time and also devote my attention better to the content. Also, why should I "show an e-book format that gives control over typography"? That's like saying, "read it on my terms if you want or just don't."

theoh 12y ago

I got a bad impression from a superficial look at the book. The typography is clear and clean enough but I saw three different ways of rendering links (no indication (in the contents section), ALL CAPS (in the body text) and lastly preceded by a diamond character (some other context)). Taken in conjunction with his choice of directory structure for the pages of the book (completely flat) I get the impression that he is not interested in managing compex information in a sane manner, but merely in making text look good. Disappointing.

mechanical_fish 12y ago
In fact, those links look different because they are semantically distinct, and the underlying logic becomes clear as you read. The small-caps links are inline references to other sections of the same book; their distinct typesetting distinguishes them from mere text. Because everything in the table of contents is a link to part of the book, these links are not set in small caps or otherwise distinguished — that's a potentially confusing design choice in theory, but I can't complain because it was obvious enough to me from the context that I should try tapping something. The diamonds are outbound links to other sites. Given that this is a coherent book and not a collection of random posts, this distinction is handy: while reading Butterick, I am more likely to click a link to more Butterick than to click an outbound link which will cause me to lose my train of thought.
- theoh 12y ago
  I genuinely hadn't noticed the meaning of the diamond links - I wasn't just making a cheap shot. In fact they are confusingly diverse: his own mailto: link is a diamond link, as is this URL on the Acknowledgements page: http://practicaltypography.com/contact.html http://practicaltypography.com/contact.html It's totally acceptable, if a bit Knuthian, to expect a reader to learn a few typographic conventions, but they should be well considered. Don't make the reader hover to find which words are part of a given link. It is probably worth remembering (as this is HN) that design is partly a personal and subjective thing. I am fairly interested in typography but I wouldn't hold my opinions out as the one right way to do things. One thing I have never thought while studying typography is "I wish this author was more pedantic and conventional, I don't know, maybe like a lawyer?".

mattlutze 12y ago

It surprises me, a bit, how many people don't seem to understand the contradiction presented by publishing a book on typography through a platform that doesn't allow control over typography. The issue isn't aesthetic, it's fundamental. And to note, I'm not sure anyone's ever blamed HTML with being designed to consider typography, beyond some basic contextual tags.