[Groff] RE: Short Orphan Lines

[Steve Izma]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 Ted Harding wrote:
> I agree with you that "final formatting responsibility is shifted
> from groff to the author". However, this is not altogether to be
> ruled out; quite often, a nasty bit of formatting is mended by
> slightly editing the text. For instance, I don't myself like the
> last line of a paragraph (even when it is all on one page) being
> just one short word; so I will re-word something somewhere so that
> it gets pulled back to the previous line. Or, I don't like "Dr
> Zhivago" being split across two lines, so I will mend that too.
> But all this is for the final version: as you observe, if you do
> this sort of thing, and then make substantial changes later, it
> will probably all get thrown out of alignment anyway!

I think this is important: it implies the difficulty of
automating the aesthetic aspects of typography. I also think that
"orphans" should not be a typographic issue. To quote Robert
Bringhurst in "The Elements of Typographic Style" (the text that
integrates rationality and aesthetics of typography in the most
sophisticated way that I've found):
[asterisk-enclosed text is italic in the original]

 The typographic terminology is telling. Isolated lines created
 when paragraphs *begin* on the *last* line of a page are known
 as *orphans*. They have no past, but they do have a future,
 and they need not trouble the typographer. The stub-ends left
 when paragraphs *end* on the *first* line of a page are called
 *widows*. They have a past, but not a future, and they look
 foreshortened and forlorn. It is the custom -- in most, if
 not all, the world's typographic cultures -- to give them one
 additional line for company.

It helps to know that Bringhurst, who has had considerable
typographic experience, is mostly known as a poet. Apart from the
fact that I think the traditional terminology ought to be
improved, I agree with what he's saying. As a reader I don't have
trouble starting a paragraph and ending a page at the same time
because I'm reading forward. However, sometimes completing a
paragraph requires a quick glance backwards for comprehension;
the more that's on the current page in that respect, the better.
But my main problem with "widows" is that in some designs my
subconscious reading mind has to think twice to distinguish them
from subheads.

I disagree with Bringhurst, however, on the remedy. He agrees
with the discussion that has gone on here so far: take a line from
the previous page to accompany the "forlorn" line, but always
make sure the previous two pages or columns have equal depth.
Again, I think the subconscious reading mind is disturbed by
extra chunks of white space, such as would be apparent when two
pages or two columns are not the same size -- the mind at least
briefly sees white space and thinks "break". In other words, if
you're making one page short to solve the widow problem, you
actually need to shorten it's facing page (or column). I think
the ideal solution is feathering the leading of the page that's
going to lose the line, but it's hard to implement (although
Peter Schaffter tells me he's got that built into MOM -- I've got
to look into that yet). My current method is to kern or mortice a
previous paragraph (not necessarily the one with the "widow", but
one that might have a very short last line and thus be easy to
kern). I can do this with one stroke of a mapped key in an editor
so it's extraordinarily quick.

This fits into the important implication of Ted's comments: you
need to look at the results of your typographic adjustments
because, so far, none of the automatic processes are up to par
with the human eye and sensibility. If you're typesetting data
like invoices and financial returns, then I think you can automate
things much more assuredly, but I would hope this doesn't apply
to those things that you want to be readable in an undisturbing
way (structure-wise, not content-wise) to other people.


-- 
Steve Izma
    Computing Systems Administrator       (519) 884-0710 ext. 6125
    Wilfrid Laurier University Press      FAX: (519) 725-1399
    Waterloo, Ont., Canada N2L 3C5        address@hidden