On Tuesday, June 06, 2000 1:08 AM, Geoffrey Gass
[SMTP:ggass@teleport.com] wrote:
| On 05-Jun-00, Jack York wrote:
|
| >Ok, this is where I go wrong I think. I use the column tool to
| >create
| >the first frame by drawing it to the size of the guides. Then I
| >use
| >Transform to create the rest. So each frame is 1 x 4.
|
| OK, that's the right way to do it. So what's wrong?
|
| >If I use Create Text Frame I get 2 columns but they are the length
| >
| >of the whole page. What am I doing wrong?
|
| So don't use Create Text Frame; use the column tool to create the
| frames.
|
| >Also I was told somewhere along the way that I was supposed to be
| >using leading type of fixed. This is not correct? When would I
| >want to use a different percentage other than 120? I ask this so
I
| >can understand what is going on instead of just learning how to do
| >this one project.
|
| If you needed to get 6 lines of 12 point type on a 1-inch label,
| you'd have to go back to 100% leading. Often a slight adjustment of
| leading will allow finishing a paragraph neatly on a page rather
| than leaving a short last line on the next page (widow) or having
| just the first line of a new paragraph at the bottom of a page
| (orphan).
|
| But whether you use fixed (points) or percentage leading, it
doesn't
| matter -- whichever is more convenient for you to use. 120% leading
| on 16 point type is adding an extra 3.2 points between lines.
|
| >> The total number of points in each label should add up to 72.
| >> With 48 points of type and 30 points of leading, that's 78
points:
| >> trouble.
|
| >Why should it add to 72? The 48 comes from 16 pts x 3 lines, I'm
| >guessing, but I don't see the rest of it.
|
| You said you were using 15 point leading; I assumed that you were
| making a 3-line label, so that adds 30 points for the space between
| the lines.
|
| It should add up to 72 because 72 points is one inch, and those
| Avery labels are 1 inch high.
|
| --Geoff
|
| --
| ggass@teleport.com Geoffrey A. Gass Foulecourt Press
| Also at this address: T. Bain Stokes Fignewton Frogberry

I thought that using fixed leading guaranteed that all line spacing
was uniform whereas using the % leading allowed the program to adjust
the line leading if the height of the actual characters in the line
were not the same (primarily allowing adjustment for ascenders and
descenders in the copy). This % method makes for a neater looking
column but can be rather messy when trying to align with multiple
columns (or with multiple items which MUST line up properly (such as
labels - which can get slightly out of whack if fixed leading is not
used). Correct me if I'm wrong but I have always used it thusly and
have had very little problems except those where I lost track of
where I was at.
Brian Beebe

On 06-Jun-00, Brian Beebe wrote:

>I thought that using fixed leading guaranteed that all line spacing
>was uniform whereas using the % leading allowed the program to adjust
>the line leading if the height of the actual characters in the line
>were not the same (primarily allowing adjustment for ascenders and
>descenders in the copy).

This might be true for some swash fonts which have characters running
outside the bounding box. But for ordinary text fonts, the spacing
is not affected by ascenders and descenders. Try this: Create 2 columns
side-by-side of exactly the same height, but not linked. Run Lorem Ipsum
into each. Set one column to 20 point Times with (default) 120% leading.
Set the other colukmn to 20 point with 24 point leading. Note that the
two columns line up exactly, regardless of the presence or absence
of ascenders and descenders. (For further proof, set one column
with just lower-case n's; the other with alternating lower-case d and y
characters. You get exactly the same number of lines in each.

BTW, I misinterpreted the effect of "fixed" leading numbers (I used
to be a "real" printer, and leads were strips of type-metal of
specific thickness inserted between lines of type). I tried adding
4-point "leading" to a column in PgS4 and found the type all piled up.
In PageStream, fixed leading means the absolute distance from the
start of one line to the start of the next, not the distance from
the bottom of one line to the top of the next as in hand-set type.
My apologies to Jack York for the confusion.

--Geoff

--
ggass@teleport.com Geoffrey A. Gass Foulecourt Press

On 06-Jun-00, Geoffrey Gass wrote:

> BTW, I misinterpreted the effect of "fixed" leading numbers (I used
> to be a "real" printer, and leads were strips of type-metal of
> specific thickness inserted between lines of type). I tried adding
> 4-point "leading" to a column in PgS4 and found the type all piled up.

I guess "line spacing" would be the more accurate (and intuitive) term.
Though this goes far beyond the typewriter double spacing of yore, or even
the 6/8 lpi selector for impact printers.

There are times when it doesn't always make sense to use the old familiar
analog terminology for digital. You reach a point where the analogies
don't quite jibe anymore. And then, when something like DTP opens up
publishing to average people who (like me) have never touched a piece of
lead type in their lives, you have to explain what the heck "leading" is.

[= Randall =]

--
Randall Blank
home@randallblank.com

On 10-Jun-00, Randall Blank wrote:

>I guess "line spacing" would be the more accurate (and intuitive) term.

This was the terminology used in PageStream up through 2.2, and the
default value then was 0 pts, which meant normal line spacing with no
additional leading.

>And then, when something like DTP opens up publishing to average
>people who (like me) have never touched a piece of lead type in their
>lives, you have to explain what the heck "leading" is.

And how to pronounce it: "ledding", since it originally referred
to adding typemetal ("lead") between the lines. Typemetal was
actually an alloy of lead, tin and antimony, but was usually
referred to as "lead".

--Geoff

--
ggass@teleport.com Geoffrey A. Gass Foulecourt Press

On 10-Jun-00, Randall Blank wrote:

> There are times when it doesn't always make sense to use the old
> familiar analog terminology for digital. You reach a point where the
> analogies don't quite jibe anymore. And then, when something like DTP
> opens up publishing to average people who (like me) have never touched
> a piece of lead type in their lives, you have to explain what the heck
> "leading" is.

I have some bits of leading which I take in to show to students. (And
some metal type from a Monotype).

Regards
--
Don Cox
doncox@enterprise.net

>BTW, I misinterpreted the effect of "fixed" leading numbers (I used
>to be a "real" printer, and leads were strips of type-metal of
>specific thickness inserted between lines of type). I tried adding
>4-point "leading" to a column in PgS4 and found the type all piled up.
>In PageStream, fixed leading means the absolute distance from the
>start of one line to the start of the next, not the distance from
>the bottom of one line to the top of the next as in hand-set type.

What you are thinking of is Automatic leading. It allows a certainly about
of "fixed" spacing to be added to each lines height based on the max sized
character in the line.

>--Geoff

Deron Kazmaier
SoftLogik Publishing
listhelp@softlogik.com
http://www.softlogik.com