Typography

[1995hoo]

Bumping a very old thread because I recalled we had a typography discussion and my question belongs there. My current boss likes to use Century Schoolbook 14-point type because he has weak eyes. Problem: When you form the possessive of a word ending in "f,"  the apostrophe bumps into the "f."  See screenshot below.

Does anyone know how to fix this, short of the difficult option of trying to avoid using an apostrophe after an "f" ?

[mgk920]

Put a space (' ') before the apostrophe?

Mike

[Scott5114]

Use FontForge to edit the font file to correct the f/' kerning pair.

[1995hoo]

Use FontForge to edit the font file to correct the f/' kerning pair.

How easy is it to do that?

[Scott5114]

Since it's just the one kerning pair, not that hard. The hard part will be convincing IT to install the amended file onto your boss's computer.

[1995hoo]

Since it's just the one kerning pair, not that hard. The hard part will be convincing IT to install the amended file onto your boss's computer.

I think that there may be a reason not to bother. Thanks anyway.

[J N Winkler]

Bumping a very old thread because I recalled we had a typography discussion and my question belongs there. My current boss likes to use Century Schoolbook 14-point type because he has weak eyes. Problem: When you form the possessive of a word ending in "f,"  the apostrophe bumps into the "f."  See screenshot below.

Does anyone know how to fix this, short of the difficult option of trying to avoid using an apostrophe after an "f" ?

In a professional typesetting context, I suspect this would be fixed with recourse to ligatures, which are presumably accessible in Word (provided the font actually has glyphs for the relevant codepoints).  But I don't think the game is worth the candle.  Using LaTeX, for example, would be even more hassle than avoiding possessives with f-terminal words.

[kphoger]

After typing the word, highlight just the apostrophe.  Then...

Alt+O
F
Tab
Tab
21
Alt+P
Enter





(only works in MS Word)

[1995hoo]

I think I've found the solution, or at least an easy workaround: I highlighted the second "f," right-clicked to bring up the "Font" box, went to "Advanced," and expanded that character by one point. The apostrophe moved to the right just enough that it no longer touches the "f," but the text appears otherwise unchanged.

There has to be an easier way to do this, short of editing the font (which I don't think I can do because of IT security policies).

[kphoger]

You could just put the apostrophe under the s by setting a rule to replace all instances of "f's" to "fş".   

[1995hoo]

I thought about starting a new thread for this, but it fits within the existing typography thread, so I decided it made more sense to bump the current thread.

This link leads to a 66-page .PDF (it will either download or open in your browser depending on how you have it set up) consisting of a motion filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, an opposition to that motion, and (on the last three pages) the judge's order denying it.

The issue will appeal to some folks here and is an example both of pedanticism in the extreme and of motions that should not have been filed. The issue: What does it means to use "double spacing" when formatting a document that the local rules require to be "double-spaced"? The local rules require double-spacing, with a few exceptions, and counsel were mad that opposing counsel set the spacing to "Exactly 24-point" instead of what the software designated as double-spacing, thereby "enabl[ing] Plaintiffs to have approximately 27 lines on each page, rather than the approximately 23 lines per page that would result from formatting using standard double spacing." (Why the court imposes page limits instead of the more sensible word-count limits is not addressed.) The motion takes up the first two pages of the .PDF (plus three pages of signature blocks and certifications). Then the 16-page opposition has a load of exhibits taking you all the way through page 63, followed by the judge's order that doesn't decide what "double-spacing" means but denies the motion because 24-point spacing "does not violate Local Rule 7.1."

The judge's order is remarkably calm and measured, all things considered.

The part I find most damning about the defendants' argument that "double-spacing means what Word says it does" is the plaintiffs' exhibit establishing that Microsoft itself changed its own definition of what double-spacing means. That alone is a reason to deny this sort of motion.

[Scott5114]

I would think that's a spurious claim anyway, considering that the Microsoft Corporation has not been granted by the court or Congress any  authority to determine the legal meaning of the term "double-spaced", and they have not claimed such authority. But this argument is the most persuasive to me:

Third, and perhaps must fundamentally, the Local Rules of courts should not require the use of any specific commercial product, such as Microsoft Word. Access to courts is a fundamental right. And access to courts should never be conditioned on using a particular commercial product. If courts mandated line-spacing based on the behavior of any specific word-processing program, access to courts would be conditioned on purchasing a license to that program. Fortunately, the Local Rules do not require the use of Microsoft Word or any other specific program. Nor do the Local Rules state that "double-spacing" is defined by the behavior
and arbitrary choices made by specific word-processing programs. The Local Rules simply state that papers filed with the Court must be "double-spaced." Defendants invite the Court to issue an order holding that "double-spacing" under the Local Rules does not mean what i has always meant in plain English and must instead be interpreted consistent with the proprietary behavior of Microsoft Word or other programs. Defendants' invitation should be rejected.

The stupidest thing is that the defendants' counsel is assuredly billing them for the time spent dreaming up and arguing this bullshit.

[J N Winkler]

The judge's order is remarkably calm and measured, all things considered.

The claws come out in the footnote:

Indeed, Plaintiffs' twelve pages worth of prose, two declarations, and multiple other exhibits filed in opposition to this Motion, while interesting, displays both sides' tendency toward overkill.

[kkt]

Most (all?) courts have rules about how submissions to them are formatted, and they are famous for being picky about it and not even necessarily being exactly the same from one court to another.  The point of double spacing is that there's lots of space between lines, so they don't have to dink with the formatting in order to print it out and have space to handwrite emphasis on certain phrases or dispute them.  It's part of the job of both counsels and their staffs to submit the filings in the way that the court likes.

Of course it's stupid to consult Microsoft's opinion of what is "double spaced".  Double spacing was a thing for typewriters for years before Bill Gates was even born.

[1995hoo]

I would think that's a spurious claim anyway, considering that the Microsoft Corporation has not been granted by the court or Congress any  authority to determine the legal meaning of the term "double-spaced", and they have not claimed such authority. But this argument is the most persuasive to me:

Third, and perhaps must fundamentally, the Local Rules of courts should not require the use of any specific commercial product, such as Microsoft Word. Access to courts is a fundamental right. And access to courts should never be conditioned on using a particular commercial product. If courts mandated line-spacing based on the behavior of any specific word-processing program, access to courts would be conditioned on purchasing a license to that program. Fortunately, the Local Rules do not require the use of Microsoft Word or any other specific program. Nor do the Local Rules state that "double-spacing" is defined by the behavior
and arbitrary choices made by specific word-processing programs. The Local Rules simply state that papers filed with the Court must be "double-spaced." Defendants invite the Court to issue an order holding that "double-spacing" under the Local Rules does not mean what i has always meant in plain English and must instead be interpreted consistent with the proprietary behavior of Microsoft Word or other programs. Defendants' invitation should be rejected.

The stupidest thing is that the defendants' counsel is assuredly billing them for the time spent dreaming up and arguing this bullshit.

I agree with you, and there is also the related point made in note 4, which appears after the first sentence you quoted:

Indeed, the Local Rules do not require the use of any commercial word processing software at all. Under the Local Rules, parties may submit typewritten materials. If a lawyer desires to submit typewritten papers, it would be impossible for them to use a commercial word-processing software's "double" lien setting. They could only employ true "double-spacing," which would be exactly 24-point line spacing. Defendants' strained position does not take this into account at all.

I don't know of any attorneys who use typewriters these days, but I would not be at all surprised to hear that some pro se parties (people representing themselves) still do so.

I have both Word and WordPerfect available on my work PC, so now I'm tempted to copy a full page of text, paste it into both, and see if there's any difference in the spacing. Edited to add: I just tried that. I had to make sure the formatting was identical, including the margins, hyphenation being active, etc., but the odd thing is that while the text took up the same number of lines, the lines didn't break in the same places and WordPerfect didn't hyphenate any words despite that feature being active, which tells me it's doing something else with the formatting (adjusting character spacing differently, perhaps?). I'm not inclined to try to figure out the reason for the difference. It's been too many years since I last used WordPerfect on a regular basis (1999), so it would just take too much time to re-learn it.

[vtk]

Seems like if one needs a definition of double spacing, this should suffice: double-spacing is the line space setting that has the effect of allowing half as many lines of text per page as would using single spaced lines, or the closest approximation thereof possible with the typesetting technology in use.

Then if a definition of single spacing is needed, it's time to bring in actual measurements.

[1995hoo]

The best solution, in my view, is to use a word-count limit so that minor differences between, say, "double spacing" and "Exactly ## point" spacing don't have any meaningful effect. (The main reason for requiring "double spacing" is that it leaves room for judges and their law clerks to make notes on the briefing.) A side benefit of using a word count is that it allows for a larger type size—the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, for example, require a minimum of 14-point type.

[bm7]

A word limit sounds very inconvenient if anyone is using a typewriter, which they seem to be trying to accommodate still.

[kkt]

The best solution, in my view, is to use a word-count limit so that minor differences between, say, "double spacing" and "Exactly ## point" spacing don't have any meaningful effect. (The main reason for requiring "double spacing" is that it leaves room for judges and their law clerks to make notes on the briefing.) A side benefit of using a word count is that it allows for a larger type size—the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, for example, require a minimum of 14-point type.

I must not be understanding what you intend by "word count".  The objective is easily legible type size and generous space between lines and margins for making notes  The number of words that fit on a page will follow from those choices, right?

[J N Winkler]

The best solution, in my view, is to use a word-count limit so that minor differences between, say, "double spacing" and "Exactly ## point" spacing don't have any meaningful effect. (The main reason for requiring "double spacing" is that it leaves room for judges and their law clerks to make notes on the briefing.) A side benefit of using a word count is that it allows for a larger type size—the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, for example, require a minimum of 14-point type.

Limits framed in word counts have the disadvantage of being more difficult and costly to enforce.  I've done graduate study at an institution that (at the time) limited theses to 100,000 words and allowed them to be submitted either with typical manuscript formatting (double-spacing for body text with single-spacing for footnotes and block quotes), or with layout similar to a "well-designed book."  We were required to state the word count when submitting, but colleagues would often speak of sneaking in an extra 5%-10% and hoping it wouldn't trigger a full page-by-page tabulation that would catch them out.

It seems to me that part of the federal courts' problem is that they are trying to regulate presentation in an adversarial environment.  If the judges don't want to rule on claims that any parties are violating formatting rules, then they need to make it clear that such motions will not be heard.

I would also contend that it is challenging, but not impossible, to construct a specification for formatting such that readability is preserved, no use of proprietary products (such as specific computer fonts or word processing/typesetting programs) is required, the doors remain open to litigants without computers, and compliance checking is cheap and easy for the judges' administrative staff.  The problem is that such a specification would not be simple--it'd have to take into account page margins and certain aspects of font metrics that are not normally mentioned in formatting instructions.  It would also need a consistency requirement (i.e., no games like changing from 12-point to 11-point midstream to make things come out right) and probably also an incentive to submit an editable original file (if one exists) for easy clearance.

[Scott5114]

Limits framed in word counts have the disadvantage of being more difficult and costly to enforce. 

On the other hand, a word-counting program is simple enough to be used as one of the example programs in The C Programming Language by K&R, where it is used to introduce the else statement and the || (logical OR) operator. Granted, this assumes that counsel is submitting machine-readable documents and not using bad-faith tactics like submitting a PDF with text converted to paths to frustrate attempts by the clerk to run a word counter on it.

It seems to me that part of the federal courts' problem is that they are trying to regulate presentation in an adversarial environment.  If the judges don't want to rule on claims that any parties are violating formatting rules, then they need to make it clear that such motions will not be heard.

I think this is a situation where the presentation rules are intended for the more efficient operation of the court, but one of the parties subject to  the rules is complaining about a supposed infraction of them in an attempt to gain advantage. This is really no different than an employee complaining to management that some other employee was late for work—it's not really the complainant's business because the rules are not there for their benefit and it's not their job to enforce them.

I would also contend that it is challenging, but not impossible, to construct a specification for formatting such that readability is preserved, no use of proprietary products (such as specific computer fonts or word processing/typesetting programs) is required, the doors remain open to litigants without computers, and compliance checking is cheap and easy for the judges' administrative staff.

One approach that has seen some success in other arenas of government is to standardize on open-source software and open file formats, as these are perpetually freely available to anyone who has a computer running one of the big 3 operating systems. The state of Massachusetts, for instance, has a policy of conducting business in the OpenDocument formats, which is supported by both open-source free software and Microsoft products, and thus serves as many constituents as possible.

I could see success in formatting rules specified in terms of how OpenDocument Text defines them, as that would be referencing an authoritative standard (ISO 26300) that is freely available to all comers. The difficulty would then be in the rules for typewriters not being unnecessarily duplicative and cumbersome.

[1995hoo]

The best solution, in my view, is to use a word-count limit so that minor differences between, say, "double spacing" and "Exactly ## point" spacing don't have any meaningful effect. (The main reason for requiring "double spacing" is that it leaves room for judges and their law clerks to make notes on the briefing.) A side benefit of using a word count is that it allows for a larger type size—the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, for example, require a minimum of 14-point type.

I must not be understanding what you intend by "word count".  The objective is easily legible type size and generous space between lines and margins for making notes  The number of words that fit on a page will follow from those choices, right?

I mean a word count. A rule says you can have no more than x number of words and you use your software's word count feature to calculate it, making sure to check the box to count footnotes. Rule 32(a)(7) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure is probably the best-known example. See below. My point about a word count is that the amount of text on a page becomes relatively unimportant if you get a certain number of words because you don't have to worry about fitting that number of words into a specified number of pages. It also frees you up to use reasonable typefaces instead of defaulting to Times New Roman because it produces a small glyph.

Rule 32. Form of Briefs, Appendices, and Other Papers
(a) Form of a Brief.

(1) Reproduction.

(A) A brief may be reproduced by any process that yields a clear black image on light paper. The paper must be opaque and unglazed. Only one side of the paper may be used.

(B) Text must be reproduced with a clarity that equals or exceeds the output of a laser printer.

(C) Photographs, illustrations, and tables may be reproduced by any method that results in a good copy of the original; a glossy finish is acceptable if the original is glossy.

(2) Cover. Except for filings by unrepresented parties, the cover of the appellant's brief must be blue; the appellee's, red; an intervenor's or amicus curiae's, green; any reply brief, gray; and any supplemental brief, tan. The front cover of a brief must contain:

(A) the number of the case centered at the top;

(B) the name of the court;

(C) the title of the case (see Rule 12(a));

(D) the nature of the proceeding (e.g., Appeal, Petition for Review) and the name of the court, agency, or board below;

(E) the title of the brief, identifying the party or parties for whom the brief is filed; and

(F) the name, office address, and telephone number of counsel representing the party for whom the brief is filed.

(3) Binding. The brief must be bound in any manner that is secure, does not obscure the text, and permits the brief to lie reasonably flat when open.

(4) Paper Size, Line Spacing, and Margins. The brief must be on 8 1/2 by 11 inch paper. The text must be double-spaced, but quotations more than two lines long may be indented and single-spaced. Headings and footnotes may be single-spaced. Margins must be at least one inch on all four sides. Page numbers may be placed in the margins, but no text may appear there.

(5) Typeface. Either a proportionally spaced or a monospaced face may be used.

(A) A proportionally spaced face must include serifs, but sans-serif type may be used in headings and captions. A proportionally spaced face must be 14-point or larger.

(B) A monospaced face may not contain more than 10 1/2 characters per inch.

(6) Type Styles. A brief must be set in a plain, roman style, although italics or boldface may be used for emphasis. Case names must be italicized or underlined.

(7) Length.

(A) Page Limitation. A principal brief may not exceed 30 pages, or a reply brief 15 pages, unless it complies with Rule 32(a)(7)(B).

(B) Type-Volume Limitation.

(i) A principal brief is acceptable if it:

• contains no more than 13,000 words; or

• uses a monospaced face and contains no more than 1,300 lines of text.

(ii) A reply brief is acceptable if it contains no more than half of the type volume specified in Rule 32(a)(7)(B)(i).

...

(f) Items Excluded from Length. In computing any length limit, headings, footnotes, and quotations count toward the limit but the following items do not:

· cover page;

· disclosure statement;

· table of contents;

· table of citations;

· statement regarding oral argument;

· addendum containing statutes, rules, or regulations;

· certificate of counsel;

· signature block;

· proof of service; and

· any item specifically excluded by these rules or by local rule.

(g) Certificate of Compliance.

(1) Briefs and Papers That Require a Certificate. A brief submitted under Rules 28.1(e)(2), 29(b)(4), or 32(a)(7)(B)—and a paper submitted under Rules 5(c)(1), 21(d)(1), 27(d)(2)(A), 27(d)(2)(C), 35(b)(2)(A), or 40(b)(1)—must include a certificate by the attorney, or an unrepresented party, that the document complies with the type-volume limitation. The person preparing the certificate may rely on the word or line count of the word-processing system used to prepare the document. The certificate must state the number of words—or the number of lines of monospaced type—in the document.

(2) Acceptable Form. Form 6 in the Appendix of Forms meets the requirements for a certificate of compliance.

[kkt]

I see, thank you.  So it's word count rather than page count that's the indicator of whether it's too long, subject to the 30 or 15 page limits in (7)(A).

But if the point is an attorney or clerk can print it out and have enough white space to make notes on the page, they'll still want it 14 point and double spaced.

[Scott5114]

Actually, it looks like the rule is structured such that as long as it complies with the word count, the number of pages is irrelevant.

[1995hoo]

Actually, it looks like the rule is structured such that as long as it complies with the word count, the number of pages is irrelevant.

Essentially, if it is the stated number of pages or fewer, it's compliant; if it's longer than that number of pages, you certify the word count and the number of pages becomes irrelevant.