Talk:Justification (typesetting)

Inaccuracies

This article is full of inaccuracies

1. "kerning" is the adjustment of space between a pair of letters, almost always for aesthetic purpose, and is not an aid in justification. The term you want is "tracking" or "White space addition/subtraction"

2. The use of ligatures is not as an aid in justification -- occasionally, an abbreviation was signaled by a different character which could in some way look like a ligature -- the common ampersand, the less common "paet" (a thorn with a stroke through the upper stem). These are not "ligatures," which again, are usually for aesthetic purposes. The historical English term for these characters was "logotype" - but this was from the days before advertising, so today, that term may add to rather than resolve confusion.

3. That "wedge" mentioned under "French spacing" was (1) not in the printing press, it was in one manufacturer's typesetting machine -- the Linotype linecaster. And (2), it has nothing in particular to do with French spacing -- it was the primary means of justifying copy with the Linotype machine.

And so on.

I'd suggest, and will add to the reference list in time, Ecekersly, Richard, et al. Glossary of Typesetting Terms. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1994. That's an annotated source, and variance in term usage is often listed. While not the end-all of sources on the subject, anything that conflicts with this book should be carefully checked.

By the way, I'm new to all this. Am I suppose to sign my name to these comments? Be happy to if I should... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles ellertson (talk • contribs) 22:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

is punctuation at the end of a line justified?

Various sources (?ref) suggest that punctuation at the end of a justified line should hang out past the right-hand alignment line. My familiarity with this is that several people tried to do this for their dissertations with TeX and failed (as did I). For most punctuation (full-stop, comma, exclamation point, semicolon, colon, right single- and double-quotation marks) this seems favourable, but the interrogation mark is distracting to the eye because of its greater width. Comments?

It's called hanging punctuation and is available only in very sophisticated typesetting systems. Not all punctuation hangs. Quotation marks hang, but periods (full stops) do not. TeX is very difficult to use, because of the arcane way to mark up the text. There are applications that use TeX internally that can make the job easier. Bostoner (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I've never understood why anyone would prefer hanging punctuation. The punctuation characters sticking out beyond the right margin are more noticeable than a little extra white space left of the margin. FreeFlow99 (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

justified text throuout history—citation, references?

"Justification has been the preferred setting of type in many western languages through the history of the written word. Its use has only waned somewhat since the middle of the 20th century through the advocacy of the typographer Jan Tschichold's book Asymmetric Typography and the freer typographic treatment of the Bauhaus, Dada, and Russian constructivist movements."

I can believe this, but have at least one doubt: are we talking about the history of typesetting, or the history of paeleography and writing since 3000 B.C "...through the history of the written word..." ?

For the time being I am changing "through the history of the written word" to "through the history of moveable type". Hair-splitters beware—moveable type is a reasonable umbrella term for metal and digital systems. Don't be so pedantic. Arbo 16:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

synonymity of "Justification" and "Alignment"

"Justification" and "Alignment" are not synonyms. The mistaken impression that they are is due to an error made by Microsoft* in the menu structure of Word that placed Left, Right, Full and Centered as choices beneath Justification. Typographers, typesetters and graphic designers know this to be incorrect. "Justification" refers only to a setting of type aligned on both the left and right margins. Therefore "full justified" is redundant. Correctly speaking there are four possible text alignments, or "settings":
Centered
Flush Left (more verbosely "Flush Left, Ragged Right")
Flush Right (more verbosely "Flush Right, Ragged Left")
Justified

• "Typographers,... know this to be incorrect". This should IMHO be formulated to increase NPOV: "incorrect" is a too strong word. Could it maybe be reformulated to smoething like "The convention among typographers, .. is that .." --Erik 14:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not too strong. It is incorrect, full stop. Microsoft got it wrong. I have changed it to "...typographers maintain that this is incorrect..." Arbo 16:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Webster's Ninth New College Dictionary
justification
3: the process or result of justifying lines of text

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
justify
5. Printing To adjust the spacing within (lines in a document, for example), so that the lines end evenly at a straight margin.

Typographic Design: Form and Communication, Rob Carter, Ben Day, Philip Meggs
1985 Van Nostrand Reinhold
"There are appropriate reasons for setting either justified or unjustified typography, but type set flush left and ragged right promotes greater legibility. If properly used, flush-left, ragged-right typography provides visual points of reference that guide the eye smoothly down the page from line to line. Because each line is either shorter or longer than the next, the eye is cued from one to another. In a justified setting, all lines are of equal length. Lacking are visual cues that promote easy reading."

I'll attempt to edit this page to correct it.

• This is the story I've always heard but I'd love someone else to confirm this. Maybe it was Apple or IBM or another software company but I'm pretty sure it was Microsoft.

• Current version, 2003, lists Justified under Alignment. Maybe it should be confirmed in older versions and stated that is no longer a issue on the word processor.

It is pretty irrelevant what Microsoft chooses to call its formatting options in an Office word processor. Word is not a typesetting program, so its nomenclature is geared towards the "naive" user.

If we're talking about "Justification" in the typesetting world (as the page title implies), MS menu structures are pretty off-topic.

All I know is that the example of a justified text given isn't really justified, it's center aligned. Both the right and the left look pretty ragged.--209.7.195.158 (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• I was involved in computerized typesetting at Kingsport Press from 1969 to 2003. In the early 1970s markup languages used by RCA GSD Page-1, Pica Ultra and ABCS (Arcata Basic Composition System), typesetting mode was marked by command JU for justified (left and right aligned), QL for quad left (left align, ragged right), QR for quad right (right align, ragged left) and CE centered. The process of setting type in any alignment mode was called justification, whether justified, quad left, quad right or centered.Naaman Brown (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

How is it done?

In old-fashioned moveable type printing, how is full justification created? Are the space characters made of some sort of compressible material? I have seen fully justified printed texts from as far back as the 1500s. --BrainInAVat 03:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Continuous casting machines like the Linotype used self-adjusting spacebands. I have put that in the artcle text. In the letterpress era (hand-setting), typographers had a vast array of spacing slugs to justify their work :-) No seriously, they did. Arbo 16:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

A compositor would use a 'thick' space between the words in his stick. As he got to the point where no more words could fit in the measure he would substitute a 'mid' and a 'thin' space for some of the the 'thicks' until the type was tight in the stick, then proceed to the next line, having put a lead onto the line of type. A 'nut', 'mutton' and 'hair' space were also available in the type case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.42.7.10 (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Cool

The article French spacing says that printing presses used wedges for spaces to automatically justify text. That should be here.

Done Arbo 16:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, the example of justified text should be lorem ipsum, and set off from the main text of the article. Avoid self-references. — Omegatron 00:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Why does sample text always have to be lorem ipsum? It can be from any manuscript in the public domain, as long as it's not the same as the article text Arbo 16:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Because you shouldn't use article text to demonstrate what the article text is talking about? Using placeholder text like lorem ipsum shows the typography without distracting by actually meaning something. — Omegatron 18:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the points you're making, but typography is not as simple as that. "lorem ipsum, etc" is written in Latin, which has word frequencies, word shapes, and other orthographic conventions that are not the same as the english language. On that basis, Latin text is not a realistic way to demonstrate typography for the english language. A similar example in typographic circles is the use of pangrams like "The quick brown fox, etc". Smart type designers and typographers don't use pangrams because they don't contain normal, realistic word and letter frequencies; instead they're a contrived mish-mash designed to demonstrate all 26 letters of the alphabet at once. Smart typographers use dummy text of some kind with normal word and letter frequencies to demonstrate a font's performance characteristics with realistic results.

The same linguistic factors apply to typesetting, including alignment. The problem is about half of all typographers and type designers are too close to the trees to see the forest. They perpetuate archaic anachronistic practices like using pangrams and the Latin thing to demonstrate typography, even they are making fonts for use with non-Latin Indo-germanic languages. Does that make sense to you?

Mostly it's typographers, type nerds and type designers who use "lorem ipsum, etc" to demonstrate typography, while the rest of the world—magazines, books, editorial and other non-typographiy-centric print publications—uses realistic fiction or non-fiction text to demonstrate this kind of thing. The notion of "...distracting by actually meaning something..." is not considered enough of an issue by laypersons (the majority, remember) to matter, and the Latin thing carries snooty, pompous, authoritarian implications that put lay readers off.

I'm a creative writer by day and a typeface designer/typographer by night, and the nerdiness of the way Wikipedia is written really turns me off. I can see from a nerdy POV (I'm a meticulous creative guy who is occasionally pedantic), and I can see from a humanistic POV (layperson's view, coz I'm an artist, see). All I'm asking for is the text in Wikipedia to be humanized by making it realistic and relevant to lay readers.

Arbo 19:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Smart typographers use dummy text of some kind with normal word and letter frequencies to demonstrate a font's performance characteristics with realistic results.

That's fine with me. Do you have a passage of dummy text in mind?

The sample of text should be put in a box, and there should be two copies of it; one justified and one left-aligned, to make a very clear demonstration of the effect.

Right on. Get some text from the random article feature. The example paras should be differentiated from the body text of the page for clarity; but putting them in boxes (with borders) will give them very close borders and change the relationship between the text and the white space surrounding it (proximity to page margins), compromizing the demonstration of alignment. An off-white borderless background area (very light grey) would make the simulation more realistic.

2 copies? 4—left aligned, right aligned, centered, justified.

Arbo 06:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

the Latin thing carries snooty, pompous, authoritarian implications that put lay readers off

Lorem ipsum isn't Latin; it's Latin-derived nonsense, meant to approximate a typical distribution of letters in English. I picked it because it's the standard placeholder text for demonstrating things. If you have another idea for a passage to quote, that's fine. All I care about is not using the article text as an example of itself. — Omegatron

I already knew it was Latin-derived nonsense. Even if it approximates english language letter and word frequencies, english readers cannot read it, and neither can Latin readers, coz its gibberish. Sample text should be readable, allowing readers to read it and experience for themselves how alignment affects readability.

A passage from a random article can be used for the samples.

Arbo 06:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Lorem ipsum is best used to demonstrate a page layout or design not typographics. However in this case we are talking about justifying text, which means that the only thing that needs to be demonstrated is that the margins are straight lines on both sides. Justifying is not only used in English, so what's wrong with a Latin, French, German, Urdu or Thai paragraph? 218.102.218.250 02:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Relevance. This article is in the English language Wikipedia. Also, looking at a paragraph is a different experience to actually reading the paragraph. Justification affects readability and how readers perceive text content as well as the typography; if the sample text is readable, readers can read it and experience for themselves, in this case how alignment affects readability. Also, perception of these things is subjective, different for each person.

Semantic quibbling. "Page layout" and "design" in this context are synonyms for "typography". Typography includes page layout and design. It used to be called, simply, "typography", or "publication design".

Arbo 06:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, the monospaced example at the bottom of the page seems pointless. Can it be removed? — Omegatron 23:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

How is it pointless? It shows that it IS possible to choose words that make a paragraph autojustify. 218.102.218.250 02:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

So what? It's also possible to choose words that are all the same length, or that read as different words vertically, or that read the same backwards. It's not really relevant or useful. — Omegatron 04:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It's an example of justified alignment with a monospaced font. I think it is half-relevant, half-irrelevant. Its relevant because it reveals more about how justified typesetting works, by doing it with a monospaced font. Its also a good demonstration of how tone or typographic "color" affects readability. Typographer usually strive for evenness of tone to enhance what is called "immersive reader experience". The more even body matter is, the deeper and more complete immersion becomes. At least, that's the argument for justified setting.

Arbo 06:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please let us keep some humour, of this very subtle kind, on Wikipedia Bromskloss 12:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Its relevant because it reveals more about how justified typesetting works, by doing it with a monospaced font.

That's not how justified typesetting works
at all.  Justified  typesetting varies the
spaces  between  words  from a pre-defined 
passage of text  so they  line up with the 
edges of the page. An example of justified
typesetting  with a  monospace font  would 
look like this.  Showing that you can vary 
the  words  in a piece  of text to make it 
look justified is pointless. 

Also, looking at a paragraph is a different experience to actually reading the paragraph. Justification affects readability and how readers perceive text content as well as the typography; if the sample text is readable, readers can read it and experience for themselves, in this case how alignment affects readability.

That's all you ever needed to say. That makes perfect sense. Stop being so confrontational. — Omegatron 14:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

How to change Wikipedia alignment?

Barely related, but what must I change in my settings to have Wikipedia be justified? I really don’t like text-align:left.
David Latapie (✒ | @) 09:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You can use user CSS: Help:User style. Quick link: User:David Latapie/monobook.css Also, some webbrowsers, like Konqueror, IE and Firefox, allow you to make modifications to the default stylesheet. Changes here can apply to all webpages, not just to Wikipedia. Shinobu 09:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for you answer.
David Latapie (✒ | @) — www 23:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

References

This article is in desparate need for more references, especially on this whole microtypography thing. Shinobu 09:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Usage guidelines

I think this article needs some comments on when to use justified versus left (or right) aligned text.

In school I was taught to use justified text on short lines (below the magic 80/72 characters), and add extra line-height if longer lines were to be justified. Is this a good guideline? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikoangelo (talk • contribs) 15:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You were not taught that in school. The rule is that you pick one and stick to it throughout an entire publication. Erudecorp ? * 23:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Behavior

One thing not mentioned in this article: Most software (including HTML, Word, etc.) only justifies text when wordwrapping. I.e. it won't justify broken line of text e.g. a poem. See what I mean: Erudecorp ? * 23:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No wordwrap (No justify)

Wordwrap (justify)

They are rattling breakfast plates in basement kitchens, And along the trampled edges of the street I am aware of the damp souls of housemaids Sprouting despondently at area gates. The brown waves of fog toss up to me Twisted faces from the bottom of the street, And tear from a passer-by with muddy skirts An aimless smile that hovers in the air And vanishes along the level of the roofs.[src]

By 1932, Eliot had been contemplating a separation from his wife for some time. When Harvard University offered him the Charles Eliot Norton professorship for the 1932-1933 academic year, he accepted, leaving Vivien in England. Upon his return in 1933, Eliot officially separated from Vivien. He avoided all but one meeting with his wife between his leaving for America in 1932 and her death in 1947. (Vivien died at Northumberland House, a mental hospital north of London, where she was committed in 1938, without ever having been visited by Eliot, who was still her husband.[11][src])

---

Could someone create an example of right-and-left justified text within the text commentary field associated with an image? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:444:380:8C00:E100:F4C1:39FA:8256 (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

in desktop publishing

Maybe i'm just misunderstanding this, but the statement "This feature, known as "ragged right" or "in and out ragged", was available in traditional dedicated typesetting systems but is absent from most if not all desktop publishing systems. Graphic designers and typesetters using desktop systems adjust word and letter spacing, or "tracking", on a manual line-by-line basis to achieve the same effect." appears to be saying that justification is not offered in desktop publishing software? That's so wrong as to be laughable. At best, it's 20 years out of date... Snazzra (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree. There are a few other places where this article seems dated or confusing (the section on 'rivers' for example). Also, there's no TOC. Is that because it's so short?? Westley Turner (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Dyslexia and what kind of justification?

"People with dyslexia (particularly Scotopic Sensitivity Syndrome) find that justification interferes..." Not clear if this means full justification, or left justification. In a sense, isn't all text justified somehow, and the question is right, left, full, centered? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.129.20 (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I added a clarify tag to that paragraph, for what it's worth. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears that justification here means full justification FreeFlow99 (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The text is at odds with its own reference. Dyslexics prefer a ragged right margin because it helps them (and everyone else) keep track of how far down the paragraph they are. Dyslexics hate hyphenation; these is enough difficulty without splitting words on to opposite ends of differing lines! This is what the quoted reference actually says, under Dyslexia Friendly it lists 'align text on the left', and under Dyslexia unfriendly it lists 'Unnecessary hyphenation'. FreeFlow99 (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the statement that dysletics benefit from full justification and judicious hyphenation. The cited source (http://www.4dyslexics.com/dyslexia9.htm) claimed the exact opposite, and the statement is at odds with what seems to be widely agreed to be the case. I see no reason to go for a 'citation needed' tag, because the statement appears to be downright false. If someone has the time to find proper sources, a discussion of the relation between justification and reading difficulties might be appropriate. Dulkal (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

There's no good body of studies that I've seen that can be used to draw real conclusions. I'd say it's likely that certain visual processing issues related to some forms of dyslexia are likely to be aggravated by BAD justification. Bad justification can be characterized by narrower columns, lack of sufficient word divisions, and lack of letter spacing adjustments, all of which tend to make rivers more prominent. These rivers can be a major issue for certain problems. Also, some older studies I've seen that refer to justification looked only at fixed-width fonts, which is generally has horrible results. Good justification on the other hand is perhaps even likely to have less visual distractions than ragged right. In my humble opinion. Of course, none of this is really worth putting into the article but they're issues wiki authors should be aware of when looking at this or that source that's making claims about justification. I also see some web sources that make completely unsubstantiated claims based entirely on something they heard. Also, I've seen indications that some text layout choices might be good for one disorder but be bad for a different disorder. Battling McGook (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Merge?

I suggest this article should be merged with Typographic alignment. 93.96.236.8 (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)