LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 15.5

Help for TYPO-L Archives

TYPO-L Archives

TYPO-L Archives


Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font


Join or Leave TYPO-L
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives


Re: Getting tight?


[log in to unmask]


TYPO-L Discussion of Type and Typographic Design <[log in to unmask]>


Fri, 18 Oct 1996 22:23:28 EDT





text/plain (30 lines)

> I think more important than such things as golden section-type
> proportions is the relationship of the proportions of the text block
> to the proportions of the margins and of the page as a whole. A page
> in which the corners of the text block are on the diagonal of the page
> as a whole looks a lot better than a page in which this is not done.

I agree, and I think this is really the major thrust of Jan Tschichold's

> Of course, this requires additional judgment to take into account the
> fold at bindings etc., but is not an intractable goal.


I'll see how well I did on the 2nd book I've ever typeset :-) (and the
first I've designed) soon. In the end I allowed 0.25 inches of the
inner (back edge) margin for the binding.

I was talked out of using the 6/9 ratio for the text:page, and
ended up using 8/11ths! I don't like it very much. But I did get
a 3:4 shape for the text area, which although not the golden ratio,
is at least not random.

Perhaps if I do a few more I'll learn enough to understand my mistakes.
The book is being published by Prentice Hall... and last year, I
criticised the typography of the 1st book in the series rather too
publickly... this is the 2nd in the series, so I shall be judged!
Oh well. I deserve what I get, I suppose.


Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main TYPO-L Page



CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager