I can see the point of that - by reducing the vertical line spacing, you are reducing the area of the large space and thus its visual effect. I am not sure I like it, however - I thing the line spacing change is distracting and the space is still too big.
Sometimes there is nothing that can be done to make the typesetting look good. The answer in a case like this is to slightly re-write the text until you get a good fit - not to massage the spacing to give a slightly less bad fit.
The tool in question (FrameMaker) seems to do a better job than word processors, and does a reasonable job of the hyphenation, but it has a lot to learn from TeX. The typesetter (person rather than program) has missed a few points too - though again, it is typeset far better than most publications these days, and it looks very nice.
The basic physiological issue here is the time taken to read the line - if there is too much in it, then you have "forgotten" where the line started by the time you want to move to the next line, even if you can still "see" the start of the line.
So both the subtended angle (which is obviously dependent on the reading distance) and the line's contents matter.
It also depends somewhat on the type of text. If there are a lot of long and technical words, it's important that the line is long enough that these are not often broken. But if the text is slow to read, or boring, lines should be short or you will again lose track of the line starts.
Ragged right is certainly better than rampant hyphenation or wildly varying spacing to justify the text. Good typesetters for short-line publications like newspapers will work with the editors to change text to fit, so that it can be readable /and/ pretty.
There is also a lot more "science" to typesetting than most people think. Even if you don't want to use TeX or its friends, I'd thoroughly recommend reading the TeXbook to see how Knuth thinks about typesetting.
I know the feeling. When you've used TeX or LaTeX, and especially if you've read the books explaining the background, it is hard not to think about it. I can usually spot a (La)TeX'ed document immediately - there is just far more attention to the small details than you get with other programs. It is often easy to see when someone has used a professional program like Frame Maker rather than an amateurish word processor, but the difference is not as great unless it is done by a very skilled typesetter. I am often asked to proof-read documents at work - it is sometimes hard to concentrate on the relevant issues rather than glaring double-space errors or font issues.
With (La)TeX, the defaults pretty much always produce a good-looking document. And, if you're not happy with the results, you can always tweak things to make it worse. [At least that's usually what happens when I decide I want to start changing things.]
On a sunny day (Tue, 21 Dec 2010 13:57:09 -0700) it happened D Yuniskis wrote in :
Yes, I should perhaps just have provided a link to the big pictures, and put the text next to it. Something to consider for the next project (that is already progressing in a nice way): ftp://panteltje.com/pub/sc_pic/xscpc.gif Uses a photo multiplier tube and scintillation crystal: ftp://panteltje.com/pub/PMT/PMT_1_img_2435.jpg Once the project is finished, I will use your suggestions to make that web page. Then there is already the next project materialising.. but that is a VERY cold project, super conducting cold actually.
Yes, on my website I sort of start from the point of view that if somebody is REALLY interested they will need all data they can get. So I try to provide the essential info. And I assume some real knowledge how to use it. It is not a training or electronics education, something like that. Although I just got a letter from the chamber of commerce that I was registered as business training centre, can you imagine. Wonder hat gave them that idea :-)
For HTML, I'd put a reduced resolution/size image "in-line" with the associated text. And, a link *on* the image so you could "click for bigger picture".
[I consider this too much work -- which is why I don't create HTML documents! :> ]
While I despise PDF's, they are an effective way of controlling content *and* presentation.
["No matter how much you dislike pickles, they are, after all, the only thing you can do with CUcumbers!" (a bizarre reference that I suspect few will recognize)]
Wow, that looks fantastic! I admire a piece of good typesetting, at least as far as my eye can see, and this close to the top of my scale.
BFM?
--
Randy Yates % "My Shangri-la has gone away, fading like
Digital Signal Labs % the Beatles on 'Hey Jude'"
yates@digitalsignallabs.com %
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com % 'Shangri-La', *A New World Record*, ELO
(Fall 200*8* precedes Spring 2009 :< I was no longer with the group in Fall 2009 -- which is why the *next* newsletter didn't show up until Spring 2010!)
The only "big" DTP (i.e., hundreds of pages) I've done were with Ventura (starting in the "GEM" days). I could coerce VP to do a lot more "clever" things -- but, it required more hand-holding (though I suspect some of that had to do with the state-of-the-art at the time).
When Corel started mucking with VP (in particular, when they replaced the TEXT files that VP used with "wacko prorpietary format" files -- which were impossible to "patch"), I went looking for a replacement tool (e.g., Quark, Frame, etc.).
FrameMaker doesn't let me play all the layout tricks that VP could be coerced into doing. But, it adds some other capabilities that VP didn't have (e.g., a much nicer equation editor). For small publications (e.g., newsletter, my "notes" series, etc.) it gets out of my way and lets me get the job done very quickly. E.g., most of the time spent on that newsletter (discounting taking pictures, rounding up articles, etc.) was spent editing other peoples' prose (it is amazing how uninspired some folks are as writers :< ) and gluing together the panoramic photos. The actual "publishing" was probably just a few hours.
We'll see what they say later in life (I take privacy issues considerably more seriously than the young-uns)
On a sunny day (Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:52:40 -0700) it happened D Yuniskis wrote in :
Looks like a scan to me, page 2 text is not horizontal, grey background, no colors. Yours is a zillion times nicer.
Corel did very strange things, they once made a Linux distro, and I bought it, In that distro they redirected all error messages to /dev/zero, so if something did not work you would not know about it. Was on my system for a VERY short time (hours), before it was replaced by Suze IIRC.
I think feathering is intended for more "artistic" presentations. E.g., "I have a two column-inch box that I want 'THIS BIT OF TEXT' to *fill* -- stretch/compress it as necessary to achieve that goal".
So, in multicolumn layouts, it just looks silly -- you don't want to (usually) "spread out" (vertically) one column just so it is a certain vertical size (there are other tricks that FM will employ to balance the columns without feathering). Instead, you usually want to "synchronize" the text baselines of adjacent columns (otherwise, the visual effect is very unsettling).
Recall that your document is not one long string of characters (with images/tables interspersed). Rather, it may be composed of many *discrete* "flows" (FM-speak). E.g., when I want to past a lengthy bit of code into an article, I create a separate "flow" for that code -- with it's own layout rules. Then, I tell FM which "frames" the flow should occupy.
So, I can start the flow in a 3"x4" box on page 1 and continue it in a 3"x6" box on page 7 (if that made sense). With this in mind, you can see how some publications (e.g., advertisements!) might want to use things like feathering in particular "frames".
You use both techniques. You can adjust the kerning and spacing within lines (and character sequences). E.g., highlight a section of text and then interactively squeeze or stretch the characters within that highlighted region.
The downside of short line lengths -- especially in technical publications -- is that you tend to end up with "big words" (and/or words that are glued together like "and/or" :> ). This doesn't give you many places to "insert whitespace". So, if you *don't* set it "ragged right", you frequently end up with things like: |the counterclockwise rotation| Your only remedy is to let some other word(s) onto the line and hyphenate them (I *really* dislike hyphenation! With narrow columns, it becomes VERY frequent)
Word processors are crap. I have yet to find a need for one
*other* than writing single page correspondence (I do even that in FrameMaker since I don't want to deal with yet another program that does "something similar").
Ah, well... I'll gladly refund the money that I (wasn't) paid! :>
The problem is that rewriting takes a disproportional amount of time. When I write technical documentation, I often DELIBERATELY use boilerplate prose. The point being to let the user ignore the repetitious aspects of the document and concentrate on that which *differs* from one "topic" to the next.
E.g., like consistently-written man(1) pages (you don't even see the cruft parts of the sentences that just serve to provide "proper grammar" for the *MEAT* of the sentence).
When I did my first DTP project, I canvassed the state of the art for tools, texts, etc. In addition to _The TeXbook_ (volumes A through E, hard copy), I have an assortment of texts on the (legacy) printing process, composition, style guides, etc.
Chase down the "before" and "since" links I mentioned in one of these posts to see how "others" have tackled the same newsletter. It's disturbing (in any field) when people *think* something is "easy" just because it *looks* like it SHOULD be easy!
I am always amazed at the various part of my brain that are "missing". E.g., I can't draw a living creature. But, I can draw landscapes, buildings, plants, etc. in very good detail (proper multippoint perspective, etc.). I.e., that portion of a human brain that can draw people is MISSING in my case! :> OTOH, if you were to show me a drawing of a person, I could immediately tell you what was wrong with the drawing and how to correct it!
(I suspect a similar phenomenon explains why so many people can't "design from scratch" -- but can patch 'till the cows come home!)
For me, it is spelling (though I don't use a spell-checker -- to force myself to be *better* at it!). And, particularly, getting names correct (e.g., all of the names of the "sponsors" in that newsletter). Thankfully (regrettably?), I only obsess about it in formal documents...
... that flashes, cycles through the color map *and* plays annoying music!! :-/
Sometimes, these tricks can be used very effectively (e.g., one of my "letters of reference" has NO letterhead; the firm's logo is VERY subtly embossed in the paper. Really classy!). But, too often they are abused. Like wearing a plaid shirt with plaid pants -- and a bright yellow BELT! :-/
(OK, which one of you guys have I just coincidentally described?? :> )
You *really* would have to play with the software to see just how mindblowing it is! Take N slightly overlapping photos. Drag them into the program. Click and you're done!
I climbed on the roof one day and took a set of photos while slowly rotating. It has a "mode" where it will glue them together in a 360 degree presentation (that you can later "scroll" left or right... amazing -- and dizzying!).
As I said, it's probably "no big deal" under the hood. But, to see how much leeway it gives you in *taking* the photos and how well it stitches them together... BFM is all that comes to mind!
I realize there are cameras that will do this for you. Hence my thought that there must be a "trick" that is easily exploited in analyzing the images.
I don't know the person(s) who did the "before" and "since" editions. I suspect someone just scanned the *print* copy and posted it on their site.
Yes, Corel seems to have had a lot of "swing-and-a-miss" in the software world. DR-DOS, their Linux, purchasing WP, purchasing VP, etc. And, losing the "DRAW!" market to Adobe...
OTOH, I think they now own WinZIP -- despite the fact that its functionality is already present in most desktop OS's! :-/
AFAIK, there are several software products out there with this sort of ability. I.e., it seems like someone came up with the idea and the *method* was "obvious" to the (different) people who developed these tools. I just am clueless as to the magic involved...
Do you have any "controls" to influence how your camera stitches things together? E.g., I can *elect* to place three (IIRC) markers in "picture 1" and "picture 2" identifying the points that *should* coincide. I've only had to do this once. I think it was a consequence of the camera "re-setting" itself to different (optical) parameters from one photo to the next. I know there are some guidelines that you're (I'm) supposed to use to ensure the adjacent images line up "effortlessly" but I don't really understand optics and the consequences of different f-stops, etc. to know how to relate those guidelines to the underlying "science".
If you want to *create* Zip packages the built-in support on Windows is pretty basic -- the 3rd party packages add a lot more features, that some people find useful.
It's surprising just how many such packages there are (e.g., see
formatting link
). I purchased a copy of WinAce some years ago now and have been quite happy with it... even if .ACE never did take over the world like I was hoping it would. (It tends to compress noticeably better than Zip...)
Unfortunately Phil Katz drank himself to death at the age of only 37.
Ah, I didn't know that. I usually just unzip things (using gzip on my UN*X boxen to *zip* them)
Yeah, I recall ARJ, ACE, ZIP, RAR, etc. Now I see BZ2 and 7Z (?) coming along to further muddy the waters...
And, of course, the StuffIt crowd from the land of apples...
Wow! Pretty young. An acquaintance, here, just passed away. When I inquired into the reason why, I was given the answer "Well, you know he was a 'drunk'..." Guess I'd never considered the health consequences of drinking (since I don't drink). I gather that most "alcohol-related" morbidity is from complications of drinking and not "alcohol toxemia" (?)
I doubt 7Z will catch on. BZ2 likely will in the *NIX world...
Yes, I believe so. Bob Widlar had already become sober and was apparently doing a pretty good job of getting his life back under control when he died while out jogging from a heart attack... it's been suggested that it was all the cumulative damage his drinking had done that made him so susceptible to dying at age 53.
I had to unpack *something* with 7Z recently. I know I was annoyed as it was Yet Another Stupid Compressor. Sort of like writing Yet Another RTOS! :>
I can't relate to addictions. I've had lots of
*habits* over the years but none proved to be "addictions" in the sense that I couldn't just walk away from them.
Sad.
Of course, no guarantee that "clean living" won't also find you dead at 53 :-/
I just (3 minutes ago) was commenting (while reading his "Tea Time") about Adams' premature (from *my* viewpoint!) death. Disappointing when you consider the things that *could* have come into the world had things been otherwise (his posthumous "Salmon" is really frustrating as it looks like it could have been another winner)
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.