TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Line lengths, take III From:"Geoff Hart (by way of \"Eric J. Ray\" <ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com>)" <ght -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA> Date:Wed, 27 Jan 1999 09:54:35 -0700
Scott McClare wondered <<I take it, then, that "most readable line
length" is somewhat proportional to the size of the print, regardless
of the absolute line length (within reason, of course)? For example,
there's about a two-inch difference in the length of 2.5 alphabets,
in 12-point and 16-point Times Roman.>>
The relationship is relatively linear, but as you note, "within
reason". When you move beyond the familiar text sizes we generally
use for reading, it's quite likely that the text is intended for
reading at a distance. As Diane Gutierrez noted, the context then
changes and other constraints may affect line length; for example,
traffic signs seem to use narrower line lengths so that the text fits
within a single visual field (rather than two to three, as for text)
and can be read very rapidly (you don't want drivers taking
their eyes off the road to read multiple columns!); similarly,
slide presentations constrain line length simply because of the
relatively narrow width of the "page" for text large enough for the
audience to read. Rules of thumb have to be bent when the context
changes.
Elisabeth Zakes continued with the observation that <<When I was
working at a typesetting shop, designers of books limited line length
to 30 picas (5 inches)... no matter the type size. I was told that
the human eye has trouble tracking more than 5 inches easily, thereby
adding to eye fatigue when lines are longer...>>
This too makes sense. There's a very good reason why the vast
majority of books have widths (or column widths) that are multiples
of 4-5 inches wide: the books are simply more comfortable to hold and
read in that format. I'm always amused by discussions of the
superiority of online text over print that fail to recognize the fact
that books represent the end-product of centuries (millenia, even) of
evolution; online, on the other hand, is only a few decades old.
It'll be interesting to see what online documentation looks like
after another few decades of evolution!
--Geoff Hart @8^{)}
geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca
