I
IvyGrad
Word defaults to 1.5 lines spacing. Why?
I want it to default to singe spaceing.
Thanks.
I want it to default to singe spaceing.
Thanks.
J
Jay Freedman
You're exaggerating, it's actually only 1.15 line spacing plus 10 pt after each
paragraph. "Why" is because Microsoft's designers think it's more readable that
way. Lots of people don't like it, though, so the article at
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/word/HA102310301033.aspx explains how to go
back to the old look.
S
Suzanne S. Barnhill
In all versions of Word "Single" line spacing uses the built-in font
leading, which for Times New Roman is approximately 120%, making the line
spacing for 12-pt TNR about 14.8 points. But the default line spacing for
the Normal style in Word 2007 (which IvyGrad is evidently using) is 1.15
lines (or about 17 points if the the font were TNR, which it isn't). In
addition, the Normal style by default has 10 points Space After. Both of
these settings are new and disconcerting to many users.
leading, which for Times New Roman is approximately 120%, making the line
spacing for 12-pt TNR about 14.8 points. But the default line spacing for
the Normal style in Word 2007 (which IvyGrad is evidently using) is 1.15
lines (or about 17 points if the the font were TNR, which it isn't). In
addition, the Normal style by default has 10 points Space After. Both of
these settings are new and disconcerting to many users.
S
StevenM
: << In all versions of Word "Single" line spacing
uses the built-in font leading, which for Times New Roman is approximately
120%, making the line spacing for 12-pt TNR about 14.8 points. >>
I’ve seen you state this before and haven’t commented on it, but since you
have now directed this statement to me, I’ll comment. By my calculation,
leading for TNR is closer to 115%, of course, you said “approximately.†In
addition, 12 points at 120% is 14.4 points (but then again, you said
“aboutâ€).
I repeated my experiment just now (just to double check myself). What I did
was print out a page of 40 lines of 12 pt text with a TNR font. Then I
measure it with a pica ruler. With 40 lines I got 46 picas and 46/40 = 1.15
or 115% (there are 12 points to 1 pica, so when calculating 12 point type,
the two cancel each other out). With 120%, the text should have been 48
picas. Now, I know I can’t eyeball a point here or there, but two picas is 24
points, and I can eyeball that. Some time ago, I did similar experiments with
a number of different font sizes (but only with the TNR font), I consistently
calculated the leading of the TNR font at 115% of the font size. I have no
idea if this hold true for other fonts (and perhaps there are also other
variables I haven’t foreseen).
But that is neither here nor there, I guess. You are quite correct that I do
not use Word 2007. And assuming that “IvyGrad†is referring to the new
default spacing in Word 2007, my remark was somewhat amiss. I apologize for
that, my only defense is that “IvyGrad†referred to 1.5 line spacing, and so,
I thought, that perhaps there might have been some other issue at work here.
Steven Craig Miller
uses the built-in font leading, which for Times New Roman is approximately
120%, making the line spacing for 12-pt TNR about 14.8 points. >>
I’ve seen you state this before and haven’t commented on it, but since you
have now directed this statement to me, I’ll comment. By my calculation,
leading for TNR is closer to 115%, of course, you said “approximately.†In
addition, 12 points at 120% is 14.4 points (but then again, you said
“aboutâ€).
I repeated my experiment just now (just to double check myself). What I did
was print out a page of 40 lines of 12 pt text with a TNR font. Then I
measure it with a pica ruler. With 40 lines I got 46 picas and 46/40 = 1.15
or 115% (there are 12 points to 1 pica, so when calculating 12 point type,
the two cancel each other out). With 120%, the text should have been 48
picas. Now, I know I can’t eyeball a point here or there, but two picas is 24
points, and I can eyeball that. Some time ago, I did similar experiments with
a number of different font sizes (but only with the TNR font), I consistently
calculated the leading of the TNR font at 115% of the font size. I have no
idea if this hold true for other fonts (and perhaps there are also other
variables I haven’t foreseen).
But that is neither here nor there, I guess. You are quite correct that I do
not use Word 2007. And assuming that “IvyGrad†is referring to the new
default spacing in Word 2007, my remark was somewhat amiss. I apologize for
that, my only defense is that “IvyGrad†referred to 1.5 line spacing, and so,
I thought, that perhaps there might have been some other issue at work here.
Steven Craig Miller
B
Bob Buckland ?:-\)
Hi IvyGrad,
Jay pointed you to a MS OfficeOnline article on how to change the spacing.
As to the 'why', to add a bit to Jay's reply
, it's a bit more involved than just the MS designers being the ones who found it more readable <g>, but in the end, someone made a decision <g>. The question as to is it more readable is, in some respects is similar to other the long standing 'debates' over things such as:
-when or if there should be 2 spaces or 1 space after a period in a sentence based on if you are or aren't using proportional spaced fonts
- which is more important - less filling or great taste
In addition to the article that Jay mentioned, there is another article that is on the Office Online site that links, in turn, to a blog article by one of the MS Word Program Manager's (the pictures on a number of the Word team blog entries seem to have 'vanished' <g>), that in turn leads to the MS Font team blog, and that to another blog article
If you're interested here are the links to those articles on the line spacing background:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/word/HA102310271033.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/joe_friend/archive/2006/05/22/603653.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/fontblog/archive/2006/05/17/600507.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/fontblog/archive/2006/05/03/589274.aspx
You may note that in the Font team blog, 1.15 spacing wasn't one of their choices <g>, but then the readability was for 'reading' not typing ease it would seem, as well
===========
Word defaults to 1.5 lines spacing. Why?
I want it to default to singe spaceing.
Thanks>>
--
Bob Buckland ?
MS Office System Products MVP
*Courtesy is not expensive and can pay big dividends*
Jay pointed you to a MS OfficeOnline article on how to change the spacing.
As to the 'why', to add a bit to Jay's reply
, it's a bit more involved than just the MS designers being the ones who found it more readable <g>, but in the end, someone made a decision <g>. The question as to is it more readable is, in some respects is similar to other the long standing 'debates' over things such as:-when or if there should be 2 spaces or 1 space after a period in a sentence based on if you are or aren't using proportional spaced fonts
- which is more important - less filling or great taste
In addition to the article that Jay mentioned, there is another article that is on the Office Online site that links, in turn, to a blog article by one of the MS Word Program Manager's (the pictures on a number of the Word team blog entries seem to have 'vanished' <g>), that in turn leads to the MS Font team blog, and that to another blog article
If you're interested here are the links to those articles on the line spacing background:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/word/HA102310271033.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/joe_friend/archive/2006/05/22/603653.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/fontblog/archive/2006/05/17/600507.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/fontblog/archive/2006/05/03/589274.aspx
You may note that in the Font team blog, 1.15 spacing wasn't one of their choices <g>, but then the readability was for 'reading' not typing ease it would seem, as well
===========
Word defaults to 1.5 lines spacing. Why?
I want it to default to singe spaceing.
Thanks>>
--
Bob Buckland ?
MS Office System Products MVP
*Courtesy is not expensive and can pay big dividends*
S
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Yes, 14.8 was a typo. I haven't done the experiments you have, so I'll defer
to your expertise.
If I print a page of 12-pt TNR at Single spacing, I get something fairly
close to 14-pt spacing (slightly more), but if I measure 10 lines, baseline
to baseline, I get right at 138 points (which would confirm your 115%). I
think this may well have changed from one Word version to the next, and I'm
sure it depends to some extent on the printer driver as well (this was using
a LaserJet 4100).
This is definitely applicable only to TNR; the leading for Arial is
noticeably greater.
to your expertise.
If I print a page of 12-pt TNR at Single spacing, I get something fairly
close to 14-pt spacing (slightly more), but if I measure 10 lines, baseline
to baseline, I get right at 138 points (which would confirm your 115%). I
think this may well have changed from one Word version to the next, and I'm
sure it depends to some extent on the printer driver as well (this was using
a LaserJet 4100).
This is definitely applicable only to TNR; the leading for Arial is
noticeably greater.
S
StevenM
To: Suzanne S. Barnhill,
First, let me say that I’ve enjoyed reading many of your messages, and
learned from many of your examples which you’ve posted online, and I have a
great respect and admiration for what you do. If I appear to be nit-picking,
please don’t take it personally, it is a failing of mine, I sometimes get
focused in on minutia.
<< This is definitely applicable only to TNR; the leading for Arial is
noticeably greater. >>
Actually, it is not the leading which is greater, but rather the width of
the average character which is greater in Arial. As for leading, I’ve did a
quick survey and found the following for the fonts set at 12 points:
Palatino Linotype 135% leading
Tahoma 120% leading
Verdana 120% leading
Bookman Old Style 117% leading
High Tower 116% leading
Arial 115% leading
Times New Roman 115% leading
Centaur 113% leading
Garamond 112% leading
I did the measurements quickly, and did not double check my work, so I could
have made a mistake, but it does suggest that different 12 point fonts may
have different leadings.
Steven Craig Miller
First, let me say that I’ve enjoyed reading many of your messages, and
learned from many of your examples which you’ve posted online, and I have a
great respect and admiration for what you do. If I appear to be nit-picking,
please don’t take it personally, it is a failing of mine, I sometimes get
focused in on minutia.
<< This is definitely applicable only to TNR; the leading for Arial is
noticeably greater. >>
Actually, it is not the leading which is greater, but rather the width of
the average character which is greater in Arial. As for leading, I’ve did a
quick survey and found the following for the fonts set at 12 points:
Palatino Linotype 135% leading
Tahoma 120% leading
Verdana 120% leading
Bookman Old Style 117% leading
High Tower 116% leading
Arial 115% leading
Times New Roman 115% leading
Centaur 113% leading
Garamond 112% leading
I did the measurements quickly, and did not double check my work, so I could
have made a mistake, but it does suggest that different 12 point fonts may
have different leadings.
Steven Craig Miller
S
Suzanne S. Barnhill
My observation had been that when I inserted a word in 12-pt Arial in 12-pt
TNR text, the line spacing perceptibly increased. Having just tested this in
Word 2003, I'll confess that I don't see it now (in Word 2003). The x-height
is certainly greater, though, which is why I usually reduce inserted Arial
to 10-pt.
And since we're both nitpickers, you won't mind if I point out that the
word is "minutiae." <g>
TNR text, the line spacing perceptibly increased. Having just tested this in
Word 2003, I'll confess that I don't see it now (in Word 2003). The x-height
is certainly greater, though, which is why I usually reduce inserted Arial
to 10-pt.
And since we're both nitpickers, you won't mind if I point out that the
word is "minutiae." <g>