Beyond courier: Good writing deserves good typography
| Published date | 01 March 1990 |
| Pages | 93-111 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb047803 |
| Date | 01 March 1990 |
| Author | Walt Crawford |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Library & information science |
The Trailing Edge: 7
BEYOND COURIER:
GOOD WRITING DESERVES GOOD TYPOGRAPHY
Walt Crawford
Words on paper: that's the end result of most
personal computing, at least in library related
fields. The author revisits a topic covered exten-
sively in his earlier articles, but takes on a very
different aspect this time around: typographic
options for word processing.
Content may be the crucial objective of written
communication, but good typography can't hurt
and frequently helps, while bad typography can
get in the way of communication. The author
notes some major options for desktop typogra-
phy, discusses some of the issues involved in
making the choices, and reviews Swfte Glyphix,
a lesser-known system for generating any size
typeface, as needed, while using Microsoft Word
or WordPerfect.
January-March 1990 brought more of the same
in PC magazines; the most interesting new devel-
opment for library PC users might be the intro-
duction of the Hewlett-Packard LaserJet III,
which has been used to "typeset" this issue
of
Library
Hi Tech.
Writing, editing, revising: that's what most of us
use
a
personal computer for, most of
the
time.
That's
been true ever since decent word-processing software
became available—and, multimedia advocates to the
contrary, it will probably be true into the indefinite
future.
The point of
all
this computerized text manipula-
tion is usually to put the right set of words on paper
so that someone else will read what we have to say.
Not
always,
to
be
sure:
other outlets for text processing
include electronic mail, electronic publishing, and
hypertext.
I use electronic
mail
every day, and
the
other
column I currently write is for PACS Review, an
electronic journal. But I'm willing
to
predict that next
year, at the turn of the century, and when I retire, the
overwhelming majority of writing
and
reading (exclud-
ing casual memos) will involve print on paper.
Beginning
five
years
ago,
I
devoted four Common
Sense Personal Computing articles to aspects of this
process: two columns on word processing
itself,
one
on printers, and one on "desktop typesetting"—using
word-processing software to produce near-typeset
printed output. These topics continue to be vital, and
the improvement in related technologies has been
substantial; now appears to be a good time to revisit
the same ground.
Crawford
is in the Development Division of The
Research Libraries Group, Inc.
—
BEYOND COURIER
—
ISSUE
31 —
(1990, NO.3) 93
CONTENT
AND FORM
Content comes first, but a little attention to form
can't hurt. Wouldn't it be
a
shame if your well-chosen
words receive less attention than they should because
your printed output is hard to read or, at best, simply
lackluster? Perhaps it is a sad commentary that you
need to be concerned about form as well as con-
tent—but that's reality. It always has been
true,
but the
stakes are higher these days.
The first rule of good form is to avoid bad form.
If you're using a low-density or medium-density dot
matrix printer,
use
a straightforward typeface—some-
thing
that is clear, legible, and readable at low density.
I'm always put off
a
little when I get something done
in
blackletter ("Old English") on an ImageWriter, and
thick, clumsily spaced versions of Times or Helvetica
aren't much better. There's a reason that Courier is
so widely used: it was designed by IBM to perform
well under adverse
conditions.
Few conditions are more
adverse than an old
9-pin
dot-matrix printer with a
worn-out
ribbon;
if that's
what
you're stuck
with,
don't
try to be too fancy.
But these days you really shouldn't be stuck with
that, and you should not tolerate poor attempts at
imitating good typography. When you can buy
a
well-
made Epson 24-pin dot matrix printer for $350 or less
and get clear, readable
type;
when you can spend $150
more and get 300-dot-per-inch inkjet printing on plain
paper from Hewlett-Packard; when you can get full
HP
LaserJet quality for less than $1,000—there's very
little excuse for hard-to-read output.
Taste and Appropriateness
When you have a decent contemporary printer
(and, yes, even today's under-$200
9-pin
printers will
produce good
output),
you
still need to
think about how
your output will
look.
It's
easy to "try
too hard"—using
typefaces for dot matrix printers that really require laser
quality, using screen resolution typefaces that look
amateurish when printed out, and using too many
different typefaces or bad combinations of typefaces.
Just because it's so easy to go beyond Courier in
1990,
don't assume that you should
use three
different
typefaces for a one-page memo or
a
twelve-page article.
Few documents of any length should include more than
two type families
such as
Optima, Times Roman, Zapf
Calligraphic, or Stone
Serif,
except when additional
designs are used for specific illustrative
purposes.
My
current book includes something like thirty different
type families—but only for purposes of illustration,
since it's a book on desktop publishing. Except for
figures, the entire book uses one type family, Zapf
Calligraphic, with a total of four different type sizes.
Information Standards Quarterly also
uses
a single type
family throughout; other than boxed items, so
does
the
LITA
Newsletter.
(I edit and "typeset" both of these
publications.)
Most of this article concerns some contemporary
options for typography, particularly for laser printers.
First, however, a few words about word-processing
software.
WORDWHATEVER
Which word-processing program should you buy?
The best answer may be the heading above—which is
short for "Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, WordStar,
Professional Write, PC-Write, Sprint, XyWrite, Nota
Bene, or whatever
else suits
your preferences or is used
by those around you."
I'm not going to do an article comparing and
contrasting word processing
programs.
I've cited some
of those from the PC literature, and will continue to
do so, but the conclusions are increasingly consistent.
WordPerfect and Microsoft Word will both satisfy
almost anyone's word-processing needs, offering far
more flexibility
and
functionality than most people need
or can
use.
Each program
has a
slightly different style;
as each goes through new releases, it gains some
advantages but retains some disadvantages
as
compared
to the other. Personally, I prefer Word's approach to
that used by WordPerfect, but, from what I've heard,
I wouldn't be bothered much by the current WordPer-
fect. (WordPerfect 5.1 is used by Pierian Press to
compose and "typeset" Library Hi Tech.)
If you need sophisticated word-processing soft-
ware, those two programs are probably the best
choices. If you're in an academic institution, look for
special pricing: for example, either one or both may
be available at absurdly low prices. If you don't need
all that power, something like Professional Write or
the Microsoft Works word-processing module
may
suit
you
better.
Depending on what you've used before
and
who you work with, you may prefer WordStar (which
is far more powerful now than in the
past),
PC-Write
(which is vastly improved in Version 3.x, and is still
the
fastest), Sprint, XyWrite, Nota
Bene,
or something
else entirely. Assuming you now have PC Tools
Deluxe, you might just
find
that the Desktop Notebook
is all the word processor you need (although I doubt
it).
It's always good to have a straightforward text-
editor on hand for pure ASCII (e.g., your AUTO-
EXEC.BAT
and
CONFIG.SYS
files);
while PC-Write
has always been superb for that purpose, the PCShell
File Editor is more than adequate.
These are just some of the choices, and they're
all good ones. If you run Windows consistently, there
94 LIBRARY HI TECH
—
WALT
CRAWFORD
—
To continue reading
Request your trial