Gordon Woolf's Blog

'Large print' is not just type set larger

An interesting suggestion I saw on a publisher forum a while ago was to produce a large print edition and to just reduce the pages of this to make the standard edition. The logic was that some of the readers for which the book was intended were sufferers of diabetes, which often brings sight problems.

Unfortunately the internationally researched standards for large print books, are not just an enlarged form of normal typesetting. And there is a big difference in producing books for those who are substantially sight impaired, and books for those of us who may have a slight deterioration in sight within the normal ranges of variation with age.

A chapter in the current edition of Type & Layout (the book by Colin Wheildon republished by The Worsley Press) -- although this is a chapter in the additional material by Geoffrey Heard -- does describe how preparing a book for the non-fluent reader is different to preparing a book for a fluent reader who may have minor sight problems, or no problems at all.

Just one quick example: although Wheildon's research showed that for reasonably fluent readers, justified serif type is by far the most readable, that is not true for someone who is less fluent, either through education or sight.

The chapter also includes information on the alternative of "Clear Type", a standard developed by the Royal National Institute for the Blind, with standards which, while being acceptable to a wide range of those with site problems, is more acceptable to others. While tending towards sans faces it does accept fonts with a good serif definition such as Bookman.

I would therefore warn against producing a smaller version of a large type, or even "Clear Type" book as a normal edition.

If the text of a book is correctly tagged in its preparation it would be a very simple matter to run it through with alternative layout specifications. I'd estimate an hour or two in a program such as InDesign, maybe even less in an entirely tag based layout program such as TeX.

There will need to be an entire new round of research into legibility on ebook readers.

Errors in newspapers: there should be fewer

Much as I enjoy stories of errors in newspapers (one of the best I've seen was out local newspaper which had "headline in here" in 144pt - 2" - type, an error that I caused to be seen on TV and in the book Type & Layout), they are not happening *just* because of new systems. They have happened even in manual days because of the rush to get the first edition on the streets.

It has always been one of the benefits of living in a country area or one distant from the production point. (The UK newspaper the Guardian became known as "The Grauniad" by Private Eye because of all the spelling errors there was no time to fix.) What should be noted is that most such errors are soon fixed and the vast majority of the readership will have seen nothing odd.

When I was a subeditor on one of Murdoch's newspapers I recall the deputy editor looking at the first edition and shouting at the copy desk: "Well we got it out, now let's turn it into a newspaper". And that was in hot metal days.

The normal setup for newspaper staffing is that galleys, or their equivalent, are read either in printed proof form or on screen, originally by proofreaders, now more likely as part of the copyediting process.

At this stage the copyeditor should take out rude words in the slug because they too often get through to print. The slug is the abbreviated text used to identify a story, originally one word, now more often a kind of suggested headline. As a newspaper editor and chief of staff I banned this kind of dummy head; even if the person writing it would not want it to be the final one it should be something which makes sense and helps clarify what the main point is of the story. If the writer can't write any kind of headline, then it often idicates that the writer is confused.

The headline itself is usually added on the page layout so may be seen only by the person doing the layout of the page. In the past, errors and questionable headlines were often picked up by the compositors, i.e. those who put the page together in metal or phototypesetting, but those people no longer exist. It is therefore most likely the end of the compositor which leads to more errors getting through -- they'd even take a hammer to the plate on the press if necessary since it was sometimes preferable to ensure that no one could read it rather than let an error go through. You can't effectively take a hammer to a digital press, though I'm sure there are many who would have liked to.

The proofreaders who were reading the page proofs might still have been reading the proofs when the press started. On a newspaper with a large or growing circulation, the plate with those changes might then sit by the press until there was a paper break and the press had to be stopped unless there was some danger of legal action. There were trucks, trains, buses and sometimes even aircraft waiting for the newspaper bundles. A little embarrassment for a journalist or editor was not a consideration.

We may actually see fewer errors as newsrooms change over from a print first attitude to one of web first, so the more carefully researched and probably longer print version would have already appeared in two or three versions on the web. Any errors which get through to print will have happened in the final rewrite stage.

The future of news stories is seen in a quote from the consultant brought in by Vance Publishing chief Peggy Waker (even though that's a magazine group): "Instead of researching and writing a lengthy print article, then repurposing it for the Web, the new process would run in reverse: posting a first take of breaking news at 200 words, following with an update at 400 words, then producing a longer second-day story, which would subsequently be repurposed for the print publication." See http://bit.ly/3dDiBU

Ms Walker also tells of expecting an outcry when the web and press editing teams were merged, and not just for single publications but for the whole group. Unexpectedly the large open editorial room was popular -- as it used to be when most publishers were like that.

I'm also pleased to see that computers are now significantly quieter. When I first changed from paper editing the increase in noise level and the size of the monitors meant there was a massive divide between editors. No longer could you read out a questionable phrase to no one in particular, confident that if something was wrong you'd get a shout from a fellow editor nearby. I suspect that as editors get physically closer once more, those co-operative days which caught so many errors will be back.

Rich blacks

I was asked this question a while ago "concerning black color in CMYK printing". The questioner said: "I know that black process color doesn't give you 'real' black from the print, and you have to mix it with others to get darkest possible black. Can you tell me which combination gives the darkest possible black color (extra black) without any 'light' points?"

There's no easy answer to that...

The black you get via CMYK (100%K) is as black as you'll get from just using black ink in any other way (though genuine process black ink is somewhat more transparent than the more normal spot black), but it is true that you get a richer looking black from mixing in a little of the other colours.

The problem comes with small text -- if you have 6 or 8pt text printed in more than one of the CMYK colours and the registration isn't perfect, you'll get a blurred effect that will look far worse than any improvement you'll get from the richer colour.

The compromise for many is to use a small proportion of yellow (say 10%) which won't show up badly if you get a slight yellow edge to the text and to use a small percentage of the background colour.

Another way is to create a "rich black" with a small proportion of say Y and M and apply this only to larger text sizes. The most common combination seems to be 100% K with 20% Magenta to give a warmer black, and maybe 20% Y. Using Cyan instead of Magenta gives a cooler black.

It's also possible to use higher proportions of the other colours, but then you come up against the problem of the total amount of ink you are putting on the paper -- and this will depend on the paper and the press. It can be as low as around 250% for uncoated papers (taking 100% as the equivalent to printing one colour solid). Overprinted black on solid colour need to be watched especially for this danger.

So, it comes again, as with so many such problems, to needing the advice of an experienced press operator, who will have a good idea from experience of what works in specific circumstances.

But does it look OK in print?

Have you noticed an increasing use of yellow and cyan for headlines and text in otherwise well designed magazines. I wonder if this unreadable print is a result of on-screen proofing where light colors do tend to show up more clearly than when printed. When this problem occurs in multiple issues I wonder whether graphic designers ever look at the finished product. Maybe the on-screen version is regarded as the final version and no longer is there the thrill of having someone pick up a first batch from the printer and throw a copy on to ever desk at the publisher's. With everything now seen on screen in what we are told is what it will look like in print, have we collectively lost the excitement of seeing "the real thing" -- and why? The problems of light type and the loss of readership and understanding it causes are dealt with in Type and Layout: Are you communicating or just making pretty shapes, the book by Colin Wheildon.