The Measure of Type

The Argument for the Metric System
The attraction of the point system for measuring type is that its increments are so appropriate for the task at hand. Since they were designed specifically for the task, this should come as no surprise. Inches and their fractions are too coarse, and trying to use decimal-denominated inches is hopeless. It’s still common (in the U.S., at least) to express page sizes in inches, even if everything within the page is measured in picas and points. Now that PostScript has rationalized the relationship between inches and points, it’s a harmonious system.
But what about metric measurements? I know some very influential and successful designers in Europe who run all-metric shops and measure their type as well as their page geometry in metric units. Centimeters for page widths, margins, and measures; millimeters for point size and leading. It’s consistent, but I find millimeters too coarse a measurement. A millimeter is, after all, almost 3 times as large as a point. Using points allows you to eliminate a lot of fractions and decimal places. For me, 10-point type on 11 points of lead is easier to cope with than the metric equivalent: 3.5 mm type on 3.85 mm of lead.
Ultimately, I guess it’s a matter of what you get used to, and by any measure I qualify as an old dog who has limited interest in new tricks when it comes to measuring type.
And besides, I like practicing a craft that has measuring schemes unlike any other, one whose traditions go back centuries and that even the whiz kids of Silicon Valley haven’t been able to muck with. Much.
 


Previous 1 2

James Felici has worked in the publishing industry for over 30 years. He is the former managing editor of Publish magazine, and written for PC World, Macworld, and The Seybold Report. A renowned type expert, he is the author of The Complete Manual of Typography.
  • HawaiiBill says:

    Here it is April 2011 and I’m seeing Mr. Felici’s February 2010 lecture for the first time. Thank you!

    His final paragraph may miss the point of “a big deal” about type but in the old days of type shops, this detail wasn’t so much about the look of he end result as it was to keep up knowledge and interest in what was a much more difficult profession with physical font racks and linotypes. Keeping the details that were only occasionally called to duty was necessary to keep that fine-tuned quality in mind for when it was needed.

    At 75, agate was about the only frequently used description when I first got into typesetting. The ’em’ and ‘en’ was mostly heard to define the appropriate ‘—’ or ‘–’ to differentiate dashes before typewriters forced ‘–‘ where ’em dashes’ weren’t available.

    Good to look back and appreciate the abilities we have today.

    HawaiiBill
    An old man, a writer who likes people, living in the middle of the Pacific ocean near volcanoes, in tradewinds and soft bird songs.

  • >