3 ms·

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 indic

by 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?".

by theoh 12y ago

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?".