tim@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Tim Bradshaw) (11/10/90)
Here at Edinburgh the University recommendations for theses specify `1.5 to 2' line spacing, and these regulations are enforced. This means that theses both look nasty and are hard to read (and also that I spend a lot of time breaking my nice thesis document style!). Clearly this regulation dates from the days of typewritten theses: it's just bizarre to take output from something like TeX and damage it like this. But bureaucrats don't like change do they? However it seems at least *possible* that we could get this changed if we really try. So, I would like to do several things: Collect references to research showing that there are optimal values for things like line spacing and length. I remember reading papers long ago which gave some fairly convincing results on this stuff, but I can't find them or remember where I read them. If possible, collect messages from *influential* typesetting-type people saying that double line spacing is a Bad Thing. In particular I remember, I think, that Leslie Lamport offered to write in support of this some time ago, but I don't really know if he did, or his mail address if he did! If anyone can help with either of these things I would be very grateful: it's for a good cause! --tim tim Bradshaw. Internet: tim%ed.cstr@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk UUCP: ...!uunet!mcvax!ukc!cstr!tim JANET: tim@uk.ac.ed.cstr "...wizzards & inchanters..."
eijkhout@s41.csrd.uiuc.edu (Victor Eijkhout) (11/10/90)
tim@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Tim Bradshaw) writes: >Here at Edinburgh the University recommendations for theses specify >`1.5 to 2' line spacing, and these regulations are enforced. This >means that theses both look nasty and are hard to read (and also that >I spend a lot of time breaking my nice thesis document style!). [proposal for course of action:] > Collect references to research showing that there are optimal > values for things like line spacing and length. There is a book by a chap Rubinstein called Digital Typography that cites a lot of research into readability. It should at least give you a number of pointers. Victor.
Damian.Cugley@prg.ox.ac.uk (Damian Cugley) (11/12/90)
From: Tim Bradshaw <tim@cstr.ed.ac.uk> Message-Id: <TIM.90Nov9181726@kahlo.cstr.ed.ac.uk> > Here at Edinburgh the University recommendations for theses specify > `1.5 to 2' line spacing, and these regulations are enforced. This > means that theses both look nasty and are hard to read (and also that > I spend a lot of time breaking my nice thesis document style!). > Clearly this regulation dates from the days of typewritten theses: > it's just bizarre to take output from something like TeX and damage it > like this. But bureaucrats don't like change do they? It is also *POSSIBLE* that extra linespacing is intended to make sure inserting comments between the lines, in margins etc. is possible... (I agree 100% that for a final document, the extra spacing makes it much less legible and it looks horrid. It's just drafts that might need to be done differently, and they may count submissions as being draft-like.) Damian
murthy@algron.cs.cornell.edu (Chet Murthy) (11/12/90)
tim@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Tim Bradshaw) writes: >Here at Edinburgh the University recommendations for theses specify >`1.5 to 2' line spacing, and these regulations are enforced. This >means that theses both look nasty and are hard to read (and also that >I spend a lot of time breaking my nice thesis document style!). >Clearly this regulation dates from the days of typewritten theses: >it's just bizarre to take output from something like TeX and damage it >like this. But bureaucrats don't like change do they? There is another possible reason for this. Many universities in the US put their theses onto microfilm thru University Microfilms as a way of disseminating the work to other libraries. And of archiving it for posterity in case the local library burns down. Microfilm tends to reduce the readability of printed matter, so big spaces between lines and large print both help ensure that the resulting microfilm is more readable. --chet--
chris@mimsy.umd.edu (Chris Torek) (11/12/90)
In article <6481.273eb57e@csv.viccol.edu.au> Douglas.Miller@viccol.edu.au (Douglas Miller) writes: >One idea would be to point out that terms like ``double spacing'' are >meaningless when applied to typeset text, because ``single'' spacing could >be anything ... AHA! Perfect! Just take properly typeset text, and when someone complains, you say `oh, but it IS double spaced; see, here is a sample of single spaced text'---and hand them output with no leading at all! :-) (Oh well, it might be worth a try) -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 405 2750) Domain: chris@cs.umd.edu Path: uunet!mimsy!chris
wvenable@spam.ua.oz.au (Bill Venables) (11/12/90)
In article <TIM.90Nov9181726@kahlo.cstr.ed.ac.uk> tim@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Tim Bradshaw) writes: > > Here at Edinburgh the University recommendations for theses specify > `1.5 to 2' line spacing, and these regulations are enforced. This > means that theses both look nasty and are hard to read (and also that > I spend a lot of time breaking my nice thesis document style!). ... > It seems to me that major theses should be submitted for external examination in a rough draft form, and only when this process is complete should they be properly typeset in final form and bound. At this second stage there seems no reason not to adopt anything less than proper typesetting standards; in particular the thesis should then use *both* sides of the paper and a comfortable line spacing. (Hideous line spacing is not the only problem by any means.) Most of the flaws in the present typical regulations seem to come from the implicit assumption that it will only be economically feasible to produce *one* master copy, as was indeed the case once whey you actually had to type the damn thing yourself. Nowdays separate rules should apply for draft and final copies, but what actually happens is typically an ugly compromise between the two. (This line of reasoning should appeal to the administrators and bean counters, since this way they would get to have *two* sets of regulations to quibble over, and with theses half their present physical size they stand to save a *lot* of library shelf space!) Are there any enlightened institutions that already allow theses to be submitted separately in draft and final form? -- Bill Venables, Dept. of Statistics, | Email: venables@spam.adelaide.edu.au Univ. of Adelaide, South Australia. | Phone: +61 8 228 5412
eijkhout@s41.csrd.uiuc.edu (Victor Eijkhout) (11/13/90)
wvenable@spam.ua.oz.au (Bill Venables) writes: >Are there any enlightened institutions that already allow theses to be >submitted separately in draft and final form? Let's put the matter the other way around. All institutions that I know of outside the Anglo-Saxon world allow you to produce a thesis in whatever format you want, as long as it adheres to some guidelines for its organization. That is, the title page should contain certain things, there should be a summary, a cv, et cetera. It's amazing that this sort of common sense is still lacking in certain parts of the world. Victor.
Douglas.Miller@viccol.edu.au (Douglas Miller) (11/13/90)
In article <TIM.90Nov9181726@kahlo.cstr.ed.ac.uk>, tim@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Tim Bradshaw) writes: > Here at Edinburgh the University recommendations for theses specify > `1.5 to 2' line spacing, and these regulations are enforced. This > means that theses both look nasty and are hard to read (and also that > I spend a lot of time breaking my nice thesis document style!). > However it seems at least *possible* that we could get this changed if > we really try. One idea would be to point out that terms like ``double spacing'' are meaningless when applied to typeset text, because ``single'' spacing could be anything --- i.e., the \baselineskip specified by the document format designer. You could try putting it to the authorities that they should specify the exact {\em amount} of leading required (which would presumably depend on point size of the text) --- this would force them to go back to first principles and perhaps make some rules more appropriate for typeset text.
Douglas.Miller@viccol.edu.au (Douglas Miller) (11/13/90)
In article <48205@cornell.UUCP>, murthy@algron.cs.cornell.edu (Chet Murthy) writes: > There is another possible reason for this. Many universities in the > US put their theses onto microfilm thru University Microfilms as a way > of disseminating the work to other libraries. And of archiving it for > posterity in case the local library burns down. > > Microfilm tends to reduce the readability of printed matter, so big > spaces between lines and large print both help ensure that the > resulting microfilm is more readable. But in moving from typewriter to typesetting, the print has got smaller, and now can't be read on the microfilm, despite the large line spacing (perhaps)! These rules need to be rederived from first priciples with typesetting in mind.
tim@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Tim Bradshaw) (11/13/90)
>>>>> On 12 Nov 90 07:16:24 GMT, chris@mimsy.umd.edu (Chris Torek) said: > In article <6481.273eb57e@csv.viccol.edu.au> Douglas.Miller@viccol.edu.au > (Douglas Miller) writes: >>One idea would be to point out that terms like ``double spacing'' are >>meaningless when applied to typeset text, because ``single'' spacing could >>be anything ... They don't buy that alas, but it's a neat idea! > AHA! Perfect! Just take properly typeset text, and when someone complains, > you say `oh, but it IS double spaced; see, here is a sample of single spaced > text'---and hand them output with no leading at all! :-) > (Oh well, it might be worth a try) It seems like the dafault spacing for CM & related faces is 10/12, 12/14 &c. No leading then is only 10/10, 12/12 which, although it looks awful is not 1.5*smaller than the default. Sigh. --tim Tim Bradshaw. Internet: tim%ed.cstr@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk UUCP: ...!uunet!mcvax!ukc!cstr!tim JANET: tim@uk.ac.ed.cstr "...wizzards & inchanters..."
russell@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Russell J Fulton;ccc032u) (11/13/90)
I don't know who drafted our (University of Auckland, New Zealand) thesis guide lines, or when they were last revised, but they did a very good job of it. They specify all the usual stuff for type script thesis and then go on to say that these guide lines may not be entirely appropriate for thesis that are produced by means other than by the typewriter and that final decision as to what is acceptable is up to the library and the Department concerned. i.e. they are not set in concrete and recognise that technology will change and leave the decision on what is acceptable to those who will use it. We have had several masters and doctoral thesis produced using variations of the standard LaTeX styles and nobody has raised an eyebrow, except to comment on how good they look! I would be happy to get a copy of our guidelines for anybody who wanted them. I have countered arguments about double spacing being needed for annotation by markers by pointing out that if you typeset the thesis you should leave much larger margins than with typescript (the LaTeX styles do this) so markers can use the margins for annotation. -- Russell Fulton, Computer Center, University of Auckland, New Zealand. <rj_fulton@aukuni.ac.nz>
schreiber@schreiber.asd.sgi.com (Olivier Schreiber) (11/13/90)
In <WVENABLE.90Nov12234105@spam.ua.oz.au> wvenable@spam.ua.oz.au (Bill Venables) writes: >Most of the flaws in the present typical regulations seem to come from the >implicit assumption that it will only be economically feasible to produce >*one* master copy, as was indeed the case once whey you actually had to >type the damn thing yourself. Nowdays separate rules should apply for I was given the reason that the microfilm company wanted double space to obtain readable microfilm copies of the thesis. -- Olivier Schreiber schreiber@schreiber.asd.sgi.com Tel(415)335 7353 Advanced Systems Division MS 7L580 Silicon Graphics Inc., 2011 North Shoreline Blvd. Mountain View, Ca 94039-7311
edgar@function.mps.ohio-state.edu (Gerald Edgar) (11/13/90)
I have not yet seen any replies to the original question, namely
published research on readability, supporting (or refuting) the
contention that double spacing is bad for typeset documents.
Does this mean that there is no such research?
--
Gerald A. Edgar
Department of Mathematics Bitnet: EDGAR@OHSTPY
The Ohio State University Internet: edgar@mps.ohio-state.edu
Columbus, OH 43210 ...!{att,pyramid}!osu-cis!shape.mps.ohio-state.edu!edgartim@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Tim Bradshaw) (11/13/90)
>>>>> On 12 Nov 90 13:11:05 GMT, wvenable@spam.ua.oz.au (Bill Venables) said: > Most of the flaws in the present typical regulations seem to come from the > implicit assumption that it will only be economically feasible to produce > *one* master copy, as was indeed the case once whey you actually had to > type the damn thing yourself. Nowdays separate rules should apply for > draft and final copies, but what actually happens is typically an ugly > compromise between the two. Although I actually more-or-less agree with this I could play the devil's advocate: Producing two different versions of a thesis is not *that* simple. LaTeX's extreme deficiency in positioning floating objects & page make-up generally may make reformatting something a fairly non-trivial exercise if there are a lot of floats around. I also don't really see *why* a draft should be double-spaced: I've spent plenty of time marking corrections on non-double-spaced proofs & it's not *that* hard, unless the corrections are dense in the text in which case submitting it is probably premature... --tim Tim Bradshaw. Internet: tim%ed.cstr@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk UUCP: ...!uunet!mcvax!ukc!cstr!tim JANET: tim@uk.ac.ed.cstr "...wizzards & inchanters..."
ken@csis.dit.csiro.au (Ken Yap) (11/14/90)
There are some enlightened institutions that recognize that standards established in the bad old days of typewritten copy are not appropriate for typeset copy. As for UMI, your school's requirements override those of UMI and the copyright form says so. Try gentle lobbying. Get your school's Dean of Grad Studies and the editors on your side. Collect names of enlightened schools to support your argument. Get the WP users on your side too. All that your new guidelines have to specify are some minimum standards for readability. It shouldn't matter if the student wants to use *TeX or *Word*.
mat@zeus.opt-sci.arizona.edu (Mat Watson) (11/14/90)
In article <WVENABLE.90Nov12234105@spam.ua.oz.au> wvenable@spam.ua.oz.au (Bill Venables) writes:
It seems to me that major theses should be submitted for external
examination in a rough draft form, and only when this process is complete
should they be properly typeset in final form and bound. At this second
stage there seems no reason not to adopt anything less than proper
typesetting standards; in particular the thesis should then use *both*
Here at the U of A it's what you see is what you get, once you've
submitted your draft and it's approved, then thats it. The folks
that check to make sure you have played by the rules are pretty
strict even though the rules are pretty vague ( another poster mentioned
something about how do they know what a 'double space' is ? ). The
people that do the checking *do* know what they think meaning of double
spacing is.
Sure it would be great to submit your thesis in 'draft' form, have
it critiqued, make the final revisions, and publish. But these guys
just don't work that way.
I think they should revise the requirements to allow for drafts, and
let us make the final versions look nice. After all the work that
went/goes into my thesis, I wan't something looks nice as well as
has technical merit.
Just my two cents worth,
--Mat mat@zeus.opt-sci.arizona.edu