What I Know About Columns, Part I

January 23rd, 2010

Goes back to the structure of a page, what the text area looks like in relation to the size and proportion of the sheet of paper the page gets printed on.

I know … sounds like I just launched into another surefire cure for insomnia. But when knowing this stuff matters, well, hell, it matters.

First, I want to say once more in this space that my knowledge of all things typographical comes to me in two distinct ways: from my study—i.e., reading—and from my own work at solving the issue of how to put large amounts of words on many printed pages. Although I continue to read anything new about book design and typography that I get my hands on, my foundation remains these three books:

  • Bringhurst’sThe Elements of Typographic Style
  • Hochuli and Kinross’s Designing books: practice and theory
  • Hendel’s On Book Design

And, again, I add on to everything I have read and every layout I have ever doped out or followed (when supplied a template by a client) with each new working out of the issues each new project presents. But over time a rough “order to the universe” revealed itself and, for me, it goes as follows.

One-column is the ticket for fiction and straight text without any kind of art. Non-fiction, especially textbooks, with display material—equations and scientific formulae, for instance—are also particularly suited for the one-column page. 65 to 68 characters, studies show, are about the maximum number for readers’ best comprehension. And about 26 to 30 picas work best for line measure. So the trick is, then, to work out the size of a particular typeface that gives you those 65 to 68 characters on the line length you decide to go with.

Ample white space—margins—also helps readability. Leading, the space added on to type size to give the measure from one baseline of type to the next, also affects white space and readability. I remember reading some time ago that the using larger amounts of leading was trending. And so I began to experiment. I had originally earned that adding 20% to the type size was the rule of thumb for figuring out what leading to use. So, for example, 10 point type would be set on 12 point leading, and 11 point type on 13.2 points.

The piece I read that spoke of this new trend made fun of it, saying something to the effect that book designers then were falling all over themselves to use larger and larger amounts of leading. Truth is, of course, a limit should only be based on how things look on the page. And you realize that limit by seeing when enough is enough and the type just looks badly set. Myself, I’ve recently used 10/14 and 11/15 with results that I like a lot.

Not every typeface you work with will look good in the size and leading combination that suits another typeface. That is why one-size-fits-all templates are not the economical panacea that some book design mills claim.

Next time: the two-column page

Entry Filed under: book design,typefaces

3 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Tweets that mention Steph&hellip  |  January 23rd, 2010 at 11:01 pm

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Stephen Tiano, Jane Mackay. Jane Mackay said: Clear explanation about elements of book design: RT @StephenTiano Part 1 of a three-parter about text pages of a book: http://is.gd/6T9u1 [...]

  • 2. Joel Friedlander  |  February 1st, 2010 at 2:30 am

    Stephen,

    Enjoying your teaching here, it’s another side of Tiano. I kind of like airing out the leading when appropriate for the simple reason that I find the pages more readable for more people. But, the individual project has to be respected.

    I haven’t done a multi-column book for a while, be interested to see your take on that. Will you post any samples?

  • 3. admin  |  February 11th, 2010 at 7:02 am

    Just saw this comment, Joel. Funny thing, I don’t know at what point I changed my mind about more generous leading, but there was a point where, reflexively, I just didn’t like how more looked. Then I suddenly noticed I had begun to like it. I wonder if it was a result of having tired eyes one day and the easier reading just felt better?

    As for multi-column books, I haven’t done many. I think I may have avoided them because I was so used to seeing a two-column setup after a few years of just doing layout on a slate of science journals. Since I couldn’t ever alter or update the design in any way, I may have formed a negative connotation in reference to multi-columns.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed