TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
As a designer and typesetter, I trust you don't usually just blindly
accept the full justification defaults as present in most of the
applications used for techwriting?
Depending upon the design, the width of intra-column gutters and
perhaps the presence of an intracolumn rule eliminates the problem of
"eyes wandering" when the right margin is ragged in each column.
Where I have a problem with *most* full justification is when the
person doing the layout wants to use very narrow columns and does not
have the time, the skills, or perhaps the interest in adjusting the
tracking and kerning to create an easily-read result.
Most of the full justification I see uses only the default
settings--which may or may not be appropriate to the combination of
font, size, line width and height, etc. Instead, it is used "just
because they can."
To me, letters or other things that need to seem immediate are better
in ragged right...but, even then, I often adjust the various settings
for a better result. I do not know of *any* word processor that is
particularly good at these kinds of settings, unfortunately.
For example, I generally set my line spacing separately from the
defaults. Then, my headings use either the same spacing or a multiple
of it so that the lines from column to column or from page to facing
page are even...which, to my eye at least, looks much cleaner and more
inviting.
When I'm in a full-blown publishing program such as InDesign or Quark,
I may also do a bit of customization for a more polished result when I
have the time--especially for those things that will be printed and
that must last for a considerable period.
For example, with InDesign I make fairly extensive use of optical
kerning for heads, and optical justification for body text. (For those
who don't know, "optical justification" places punctuation outside of
the regular margin...for a result that *looks* much more polished).
However, these are topics that go well beyond the interest or need of
the majority of techwriters (I also do marketing communications, where
it is helpful).
What I am trying to indicate is that for most folks, automatic
justification settings can be a visual disaster, especially with word
processors that lack much in the way of typesetting ability. Thus, for
those using a Word or an OpenOffice for their work, I suggest only
using right justification "in extremis" and not as a preferred choice
for most technical docs.
David
> My preference is usually full justification because it has a neater look
> and it forces the eye to stay with one column at a time. If one chooses
> ragged right, it is usually necessary to put more space between columns
> because otherwise the eye has a tendency to jump columns.
ROBOHELP X5 - SEE THE ALL NEW ROBOHELP X5 IN ACTION!
RoboHelp X5 is a giant leap forward in Help authoring technology, featuring all new Word 2003 support, Content Management, Multi-Author support, PDF and XML support and much more! View an online demo: http://www.macromedia.com/go/techwrldemo
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
