Type Size and Leading, White Space and Page Color
February 24th, 2013
The size of type, of an individual letterform in a particular typeface, is measured from the top of the highest ascender to the bottom of the lowest descender. (Note: I originally had some kind of brain freeze and defined this incorrectly. But Michael Brady was kind enough to point this out to me in a LinkedIn group discussion.) But that doesn’t mean different typefaces fall the same way on a page. Some typefaces have larger x-heights (measured from baseline to the top of, say, a lowercase x. Others have longer or shorter ascenders and/or descenders. So there are definite differences in how much space characters in any particular type occupy in comparison to those same characters set in another typeface.
Leading, as indicated by the dotted horizontal lines in the example above, is measured from baseline to baseline. After type size, leading is perhaps the simplest way to exert control over the color of the page—i.e., how dense (light or dark) the page looks.
Rule of thumb says 120% of the type size is a usual leading. So if the type size is 10 point, rule of thumb calls for 12 point leading.
Too little leading—the term originates from strips of lead placed between lines of type when type was set by hand, in metal, during the pre-digital age—and the page will be crowded with type and have a dark look.
Notice how the above example appears blacker than the one above it, which looks grayish in comparison.
Too much leading, on the other hand, distracts the reader’s eye. Such text looks disjointed, and the lines no longer appear to be joined into paragraphs. The page looks lighter still than the previous lighter page.
My sense over the last few years has been to use more and more leading, pulling up way short from too much, but definitely stretching beyond 120% of type size. With the ITC New Baskerville type I’ve used for all my examples, I was able to stretch the leading to 16 point, over 131%. And yet I think it clearly is not too much.
Stretching limits, but not rupturing them, I believe, is a good way to create page designs that are attractive and original, but do not distract readers from the books they read.
Entry Filed under: typefaces,typography
4 Comments Add your own
1. Duncan Long | February 25th, 2013 at 12:05 pm
Glad to read this as I find myself often going with 130% leading myself. I’m not sure if this is just a trend or perhaps a reaction to the higher x-height of many of the popular typefaces, but it sure looks better to my eye than does 120%.
2. admin | February 25th, 2013 at 7:43 pm
Yes, but I’ll be interested in seeing whether more than my “top,” 131%, is something I’ll be willing to try. I suppose it depends on what typeface is used. I can see, possibly, going for a larger number with a larger x-height.
3. Elizabeth Edwards | March 1st, 2013 at 1:14 pm
I’ve designed books and other printed materials that were going to be read mostly by older readers, and I’ve always found that even a “normal” 10pt. text face is perfectly readable, even to older eyes, with enough leading and a good column width. One client I worked with was fixated on the notion that large (e.g., 12- or 14-point) type with high x-height was all that these older readers needed for readability – even in narrow justified columns – but since he still needed to to fit in his deathless prose, he felt the leading could simply be squeezed. Since he didn’t know InDesign and therefore couldn’t check, I simply told him that my 10-point type was 12-point type so he’d be happy. I think I used 130% leading.
4. admin | March 1st, 2013 at 1:24 pm
Sure, taking into account your audience (older readers) and balancing against the different ways to make text more comfortably readable (type size, leading, white space around the text area) are all ways to improve the reader’s experience. But, yes, I think any one of those, particularly leading, can go a ways toward accomplishing this. I guess type size really is the one to put the breaks on soonest, tho’.
As an aside … I’ve heard of lifeless prose. But deathless? You mean, neverending? As in, anyone would wish that it would end?
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed