Re: [Groff] holistic widow elimination

[Ted Harding]

On 07-Jan-2012 Robert Thorsby wrote:
> On 08/01/12 08:31:40, Peter Schaffter wrote:
>> > So, dealing with orphans by changing the line spacing, is just
>> > a "no other choice" solution. You should prefer dealing with
>> > interword and interletter spaces.
>> 
>> Correct.  The shortening or lengthening of paragraphs to avoid
>> widows and orphans requires the skillful manipulation of
>> letter- and word-spacing on a line-by-line basis, not an overall
>> change of leading that merely expands or contracts the depth of the
>> text.
>> 
>> Would that the process could be automated, but I have yet to be
>> shown that it can.  Typography is still, after all these years,
>> an art that requires a good eye, a deft hand, and human judgment.
> 
> Is there an alternative method that is better/faster/cleaner than the use 
> of complementary values for \s and \H? For example,
> 
> \s'-100u'\H'+100u'The quick brown fox ...\H'0'\s0
> 
> will "shorten" the text by a "little" amount. But finding the smallest 
> value that achieves the requisite effect (usually moving one word up or 
> down a line) is a PITA.
> 
> [100u -- 1/10 of a point -- was chosen for the nonce, I usually start 
> with 250u]
> 
> Also, this "Poor Man's Track-Kerning" is, of course, not strictly kosher 
> because it affects the inter-word spacing as much as the inter-character 
> spacing. What method do others use?
> 
> Robert Thorsby
> To be or not to be. -- Shakespeare
> To do is to be. -- Nietzsche
> To be is to do. -- Sartre
> Do be do be do. -- Sinatra

I've been hesitating about joining in, because (as is
already beginning to emerge) it is potentially a complex
question; and also the kind of solution which should be
preferred is a question of taste, convention, or context,
as well as convenience of use.

For myself, I would generally avoid trying to embed such
things in macros, since a macro is what it is, and will
lack the "on-the-fly" judgment and flexibility that one
will usually want to use.

One important factor is whether or not what you are trying
to typeset is something that you are writing for yourself.
If so, then often simply re-wording your text (but avoiding
any changes of meaning or nuance) is a good approach. But
this is out of the question if what you are typesetting is
something written by someone else which you need to preserve
as it is.

Regarding Robert's "Poor Man's Track-Kerning", with care it
can be nicely combined, to an unobtrusive degree, with equally
unobtrusive "True Track-Kerning" using the .tk request, to
double effect.

While I am at it, I would have thought that Robert's use
of a relative height change \H'+100u' was unnecessary,
since \H'N' (where N is the current point size) will also do.

Another trick is to change the inter-word spacing, using
the .ss request. Thus

.ss 10

reduces the minimum word-space to 10/12 of its default.
Don't forget to reset it when no loner needed by using

.ss 12

Often, the most useful change in text layout for adjusting
the number of lines is pulling back the leftovers of hyphenated
words onto the same line as their parent, since that can often
reduce the number of lines in a paragraph by 1. To do this,
pick and mix the above methods according to taste,

All such approaches imply making the changes to the formatting
after the text has reached definitive final form. If not, then
second thoughts can have complicated knock-on effects.

Just a few somewhat random thoughts. I've been through this
sort of thing too often for it to be easy or quick to summarise!

Ted.
----------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <address@hidden>
Date: 07-Jan-2012
Time: 22:19:28

This message was sent by XFMail
----------------------------------