My guess would be the are refering to +10 tracking. For example +10 in indesign, sometimes refered to as +10%, which is I belive 10% of an EM. Then again I may be crazy.

hildebrant.

Be careful about tracking: different apps use different units for tracking. Notoriously, Quark tracking is in some terribly coarse units like 1/200 of an em, while Adobe's is more like 1/1000 of an em.

Specifying % of em is quite a good idea, if this is what your British standard intends, but only so long as you know what units your application is using. 10% of the em is going to be a different value in Quark than it is in Adobe apps, but if you know the unit used you can calculate the value from the x% em specification.

That's just my guess though. Can you contact the authors of the document for clarification?

Tanya --

I'm not a Brit. But I am in agreement with the others. The "em" here goes with the 10%, not with the "kerning". The instructions are asking for kerning in the amount of 10% em. An em is, of course, a relative value equal to the point size of the type in question.

As John points out, different applications use different size units for measuring kerning/tracking. In Quark, the smallest unit is indeed 1/200th of an em. In InDesign, it is 1/1000th of an em. So in Quark, 10% em would be 20 units; whereas in InDesign, it would be 100 units.

These days the terms "kerning" and "tracking" are often used interchangeably. I've always considered them separate, though similar, adjustments. Kerning is fit adjustment between specific individual pairs. Tracking is set-width adjustment over a range of glyphs -- global kerning, if you will.

It may just be me, but I've always considered the default direction of kerning/tracking to be negative, so in the absence of a specification like "positive" kerning, my interpretation is to close up the space.

so in plain ol typographical terms and not all this application talk:

what you guys are saying is:

"Stone Sans 14pt, Left Justified 10% em Kerning."

(for Quark if Quark is set at 1/200th of an em)

really means =
"Stone Sans 14pt, Left Justified track 20pts."

But what if I�m not using Quark or InDesign - what if I�m using Illustrator.

What does this 10% em Kerning mean for when I�m laying out by hand - y�no whats the em ratio setting for my eyes...hehe, ok but seriously

really means =
"Stone Sans 14pt, Left Justified track 20pts."

Not 20pts, 20 tracking units, but yes you get the idea.

I think Illustrator uses the same tracking units as other Adobe apps, i.e. 1/1000 of the em.

If you are spacing manually, rather than using application tracking, then you'll probably want to think in terms of points. So 10% em kerning for 14pt text is going to be 14*0.1 = 1.4pts

o mmy brain.

if quark is set at 1/200th of an em...I still don�t know the pts? its tracking units? a unit of what?

I track using points, metric or imperial or whatever my prefs are set in.

but yes the equation or ratio to figure out the pts from these specs is what I wanted to know, in basic typographical terms if you will -

thanks for the answer though. now, to figure out why anyone would need to have tracking set at 1.4pts for various typefaces is beyond me.

SoooOoOoO:
track 1.4pts = the same as 20 units (of wotever) which equals 10% of the em)

>track 1.4pts = the same as 20 units (of wotever) which equals 10% of the em)

Only for a 14pt face. For, say, a 10 point face, 10% em kerning would be 10*0.1 = 1.0pts.

Because the size of the em is always relative to the size of the type.

Nathan's got it. It's all relative.

When you type in 20 for tracking in Quark, you're indicating 20/200ths of an em (which is the same thing as 10% -- 20 divided by 200, right?). The actual physical value of this will change depending upon the point size of the type that has been tracked. If the type is 14 point, then the net effect will be to track it open by 1.4 pts. But if you change the type size to 24 points, the physical value of your 10% tracking will change to 2.4 points. But it's still 10% of an em.

BTW, this is all regardless of what units you have your application set to work in -- points, ciceros, millimeters. It doesn't matter. An em is a relative measure. And the tracking is specified in fractions of an em.

-- K.

and they said computers would make life easier.

Whoever said that should have been I my office the last two days. As we try to upgrade to a new exchange server.

2 hours just to demote a domain controller? WTF?

sorry, just venting.

I'm a ludite at heart!

Designers had to do a lot more math before computers were around. Anybody remember copyfitting? Spec'ing a runaround?

Ah the good ol' days. Characters per pica chart, Haber ruler, and a calculator.

I remember showing some design students a marked up manuscript and the resulting photo-type galley, explained how it used to be done and boy did they freak.

well yes, in school we learned to draw faces to scale by hand, failed if our bowls were inconsistent, layed out columns of dummy copy by hand and then was told that the fictional "art director" changed his mind and wanted .5in gutter during the last half hour of class. all the while teased with the g3's sitting over on the other side of the room.

I do know and have respect for the ol days, still it seems that sometimes computers confuse the art more then it helps.

Ah, I remember c/p charts and haberules. I was fortunate to have a younger brother who operated a Compugraphic at the local typesetters, and I would call him up and say, "Could you reset that job 10 on 11 instead and bring it home with you?"

Tanya, computers mostly just make it different, not always easier. The computer transferred so much more control to the designer. But with that came a whole lot more responsibility -- which many designers didn't/don't recognize, and consequently a lot of subtlety and quality was lost in the transition. It seems now, also, that often the technology dictates the design rather than the other way around.

That said, I'm grateful for the computer. But I'm also grateful to have learned design without one.

-- Kent.