What is the measure? I prefer to avoid hyphens and consequently do spend a lot of time going over the rag at the end of a job. You are not the only one to have had the request.

Tim

Ask her what she'd do about a word such as "shell-like" ... surely she wouldn't want it written as "shelllike" ... would she?

This is going to make for a rather awkward rag (at the best) or a lot of time spent walking the lines trying to fix the rag.

Depending on your content and the size of your gutter, yes, it might be a problem, but it might not either. If you've got a narrower gutter and wider columns, and most words under 11 letters, it may well not be one.

I set ragged-right text without hyphens very often, and no one has complained about readability, so you probably can't use that at a rationale....

>The client has got some bug up her @$5 that “hyphens are bad in all circumstances” and has directed that no words shall ever be hyphenated. Ever.

Easy solution, have the piece translated into Japanese. Or read this similar thread... http://typophile.com/node/30235

You can turn off hyphenation in Indesign. Under the paragraph palette. You may have to turn on the 'view options' to see it.

Elizabeth, proxy argumentation with nazis is hopeless. Especially in ASCII! :-/

"Richard", I think the best you can do is follow orders but gently
help her realize through your results that she needs to loosen up.
If the measure is long enough (I see your leading is huge, which is
encouraging - if only in a twisted way) you can reduce hyphens,
which I actually agree is beneficial, but an Absolute Ban is nuts.

hhp

You could show her an assortment of publications which demonstrate the widespread acceptable use of hyphens with the hope she may change her mind.

You could conjure a fatal storm of lead hyphens to rain down upon her with the hope she is replaced with a more reasonable editor.

Or you could say to her that it's an unusual request (which consumes column inches and can result in raggedy arsed columns which may compromise readablity) but that you would be more than happy to do all that extra work for an additional cost.

If it pays why argue with fools?

I agree with the client--no hyphenation! Sorry if that puts me in with the "fools." I just think it's not needed, is less readable, and you may end up with some really wierd computer-generated hyphenation. By the way, I noticed that none of these posts are hyphenated.

That's nothing - you should see what they look like on Macs. :->

hhp

By the way, I noticed that none of these posts are hyphenated.

And do you consider all of them to be good typography?

I avoid hyphens in ragged text but there are occasions when it's essential to prevent a really weird shape in your rag. I'd say do your best not to use them (turn hyphenation off, as suggested) and then manually introduce them only if necessary. And then take it case by case with the boss. Odds are she won't even notice the odd hyphen. It is neither an unusual nor an unreasonable request but I tend to resist that sort of rigid attitude too in favor of a little more flexibility.

A client asking to eliminate hyphens in ragged settings is no big deal. Means the rag will be a little looser, and you'll have to massage it a little bit more to make it look good. But you should be doing that anyway. You are a typographer not a computer-monkey.

It might be unusual to get that kind of absolute directive, but it ain't unheard of, and I've heard some a lot more outlandish! In any case, at 9.5/13, with a column width of, say 12p2 to 13p6 (which you'll probably get w/3 legs on letter), I don't think it'll be a problem either. Like Ken said, it'll loosen up the rag, but you're leading it out nicely anyway, so it may just reinforce the air.

The problem I run into is long urls in running text. How do you hyphenate those without confusing the reader?

The problem is that removing hyphenation will generally make reading easier -- except that every so often it will create an oddity of adjacent line-lengths which draws attention to itself, looking like a word has been left out. So highlight those instances in fluourescent marker, and ask her if you can re-write the copy to get a smoother rag. And I say this only partially in jest. :-)/:-(

(There is also a problem in rag copy where by chance several adjacent lines come out to the full measure, looking like some justification got mixed in by mistake. Another cause for intervention with the dreaded soft return.)

What Nick said, except make her rewrite the stuff. Giving her more work to do might tame her pickiness.

Hi,

You might want to read this...
http://home.comcast.net/~garbl/stylemanual/h.htm

(i love it that the style page begins with "hairbrained" and ends with "hypocrisy," with "hyphen" falling somewhere in between...)

> The problem I run into is long urls in running text.
> How do you hyphenate those without confusing the reader?

Not to start a Typo-L-style mess, but the least problematic
solution I've heard of is to use the logical-not character.

hhp

That's interesting. I don't think I've ever heard that before. I had always thought the logical not was a mathematical symbol. You're saying it can indicate the hyphenated word does not contain a dash?

I'm not sure if you're asking what I'm thinking. The logical-not at the end of an incomplete URL can indicate that it should be ignored and the rest of the URL from the following line should be appended. Sort of like a special hyphen for URLs. The reason this can work is that the hyphen is allowed in URLs but the logical-not... is not! :-) On the other hand, some people will tend to get confused. Natural selection, baby. ;-)

hhp

I have had this request many times over. My only solution was to do a flush left/rag right. When they come back and say, Justify" - I say, "Hyphens."

Then of course I ask them to cut some copy, because let's face it, justified lines with hyphens takes up less room.

Good luck - you can do it -- just takes more time per page to make it look right - beware of rivers....

We get all sorts of requests regarding hyphenation -- usually from editors, sometimes from designers. With ragged setting, I've seen "no hyphens," "no more than two hyphens in a row" (a usual hyphen block in justified copy is more than three), "don't hyphenate after two only letters," and on & on. On the other hand, some specify "tight ragg." A few want lines to have a pattern of "long, short, long, short." Those are the only ones I tell to find another typesetter.

People have all sorts of theories on what is easier to read. I use to have them, too. But I can read a book & enjoy it & forget my profession. So on a number of occasions, after finishing a book, I went back to look at the hyphenation that had been used. Most of them broke all sorts of my pet rules, & I finally had to admit most of these rules are a matter of what people (including me) used to feel more professional; they had nothing to do with reading.

One thing people often seem to forget is that all composition is compromise. Hyphenation aids even spacing -- between words in justified copy, at line ends in ragged copy. Unless you write & rewrite the copy to fit the space, limiting one increased the amount of the other.

One of my favorite PE's was "PE, loose line; PE, hyphenated word." Both PE's referring to the same line. The hyphenated word was a long one, and all agreed it wasn't going to come up. So to banish the hyphen, the line perforce had to get even looser. Where do they think loose space space comes from?

There is also a fun situation with 18th century composition. Apparently, some felt the reader might get lost if a word hyphenated overleaf. So, if that happened, they would set the complete word on the line below that last line; the reader would then have the whole word. Next, someone got the idea that even if the word wasn't hyphenated, the reader might get lost, so they set the next word (that occurred overleaf) on the line below. Apparently someone finally figured out that the logical end to that was to set the whole rest of the chapter on the line(s) below, which wasn't going to work, so they stopped this nonsense. Today, with people reading while listening to music & maybe watching television simultaneously, this argument ("the reader will get confused") has little merit.

Simple solution: using a thesaurus, a bottle of wine, and some trial and error, get the text to make an interesting symetrical shape.

I don't think it's a big deal to be specified no hyphenation if your text is going to be set ragged-right. I normally set the text up with hyphenation and 'Paragraph Composer' turned off, and then go through it line by line manually adjusting the line breaks. And you've only got 8 pages of text so it's not a big deal to do this. If you do it well a deep-rag can look nice.

I turn off Adobe Paragraph Composer too. I'm too much of a control freak to let the program rag my text for me, and I don't think it does such a great job.

Hrant: I don't see why you would need any hyphenation character in a URL at all. Why not just break after a slash, or if necessary anywhere else? Given that URLs start with "http://" or "www" or similar it should be clear where the URL starts.

I'm looking at a PHP manual where faint halftoned arrows are used *after* the line break to indicate run on lines. But then it's much more difficult to tell what's happening from context

hrant-
Like I said, it's an interesting solution for the url line. I'm going to play with it a bit and see how well it "works" aesthetically for me.

Credit goes to Jef Tombeur.

hhp

Just finished a job with the same request. The client also requested that I not set the numerals as subscript, which translates to old style.

My initial read was that this person was used to fixing on the no-hyphens. I just worked with it and kicked it back for small re-writes to fix the worst problems. It still isn't as good as it could have been with a few selective hyphens, but as stated above, with the right measure you can work it out.

[removed]

Why did you remove that - it was brilliant! :-(

hhp

and the rest of us who didn't see it feel cheated...

Yeah! Put it back please - you can write why you removed it or thought again.

With apologies, I thought the comment—nay, essay— wasn't sufficiently typographic in nature. And what it lacked in concision it made up for with wildly inflated rhetoric. In lieu of a poorly rewritten version, the gist was, in short, that the client's rigid No Hyphen mandate is largely a declaration of status meant to shape the relationship. To absolutely assert an arbitrary rule concerning something so trifling is a sort of preemptive scolding, a very slight symbolic degredation of your social rank: "Don't forget that there are limits to your ownership here. You will respect me and do as I say."

If you are not working inside an organization with a formalized system of rank, these sort of superior/subordinate negotiations go on all the time. The point of contention is always, necessarily, trivial. How adroitly you handle the process — the degree to which you push back, comply, or renegotiate — obviously has less to do with design strategy and more to do with a sensitivity to political pressure. But I would suggest that there are a number of creative solutions that will allow one to produce work of the highest quality and also let your client know that she is valued, heard and respected. And I think achieving those two things together is the real goal.

And what it lacked in concision it made up for with wildly inflated rhetoric.

Having seen the original, that comment is quite an understatement.

Hmmm... I did several projects with a client that said, "Our headline face is Torino."

To me, it sounds like much the same thing. I don't happen to have many relationships with clients that I would describe as adversarial, although I admit -- they do sometimes exist.

In the end, I think (and this is my personal take) that both designer and client have a stake of ownership (for want of a better term) of a project, but perhaps the greater stake must belong to the client; it's to they that designers hope to give a voice, and it's also they who will either be served or not with the design.

If you work at an office where the boss says, "No bolo ties," I think it's a losing position to declare that bolos, are, in fact, the accessory that asserts your freedom of expression. The boss has an overall image they are hoping to project, and if that one look doesn't fit into the definition, as they see it, them so be it.

Anyway, I'm rambling.

Any designer can work without hyphens, if they need to.

Thanks Thomas.

With apologies, I thought the comment—nay, essay— wasn’t sufficiently typographic in nature. And what it lacked in concision it made up for with wildly inflated rhetoric. In lieu of a poorly rewritten version, the gist was, in short, that the client’s rigid No Hyphen mandate is largely a declaration of status meant to shape the relationship. To absolutely assert an arbitrary rule concerning something so trifling is a sort of preemptive scolding, a very slight symbolic degredation of your social rank: “Don’t forget that there are limits to your ownership here. You will respect me and do as I say.”
If you are not working inside an organization with a formalized system of rank, these sort of superior/subordinate negotiations go on all the time. The point of contention is always, necessarily, trivial. How adroitly you handle the process — the degree to which you push back, comply, or renegotiate — obviously has less to do with design strategy and more to do with a sensitivity to political pressure. But I would suggest that there are a number of creative solutions that will allow one to produce work of the highest quality and also let your client know that she is valued, heard and respected. And I think achieving those two things together is the real goal.

Sry I missed the original. This is right on though. Most of human actions don't rise above the basic pissing and sniffing we are so fond of. To elevate the discussion to the betterment of the communication and function is limited by the lack of social intelligence.

To add a little more complexity, I believe the person I was working with was demonstrating to me her methods of dominating the in-house designer she was used to working with. My experience is that pressure to move in a better direction is best applied consistently over time. I'm sure my explanation of old style characters, which she had assumed were subscript?, did not sit well with her and only strengthened her resolve to not bend on other well established routines.

Please send me the original comment if it is still to be had.

Well part of being a designer is that you are also frequently dealing with people who have a little bit of knowledge about type and/or design, and want to make sure you know that. It is a power game - if they're the client they want to make sure they're getting what they pay for (and that you know you work for them). If they're the client's representative or liaison then they want to prove their importance to the client - make sure the clients believes they are instrumental to the design process.

I've had all sorts of design rules spouted at me and most of the time, unless it's something I have a serious objection to, I roll with it. Being a difficult designer isn't gonna help you in the long run.

It's like going to the dentist and telling him what and how to do it. Seems realistic? Not really.

But unfortunately there are many people out there that they think they can outsmart the dentist. Of course they're the ones that end up with "worst teeth".

It’s like going to the dentist and telling him what and how to do it. Seems realistic? Not really.

No, it's not like that at all. Everybody, every human being, has some sense of design. It's true that not everybody is a fashion designer, but everybody can put together an ensemble. It's true that not everybody is an interior designer, but everybody can paint four walls or hang posters.

The profession of dentistry has nothing to do with design. So it's more like going a hair stylist and telling him what to do and how to do it. And that happens all the time.

Design is subjective. (Tiffany that said that on another thread, and I agree wholeheartedly.)

So it’s more like going a hair stylist and telling him what to do and how to do it. And that happens all the time.

And that's why there are still people who have mullets.... ;-)

Design is subjective. (Tiffany that said that on another thread, and I agree wholeheartedly.)

I do too, although one could say the same thing about music, even for people who can't carry a tune in a bucket or have the sense of rhythm of a dead slug. Most (but not all) of them know their limitations.

Not all of Design is subjective - certainly not all of
text typography. That would make it Art (god forbid).

hhp

When I said that I'm sure I was generalizing. While anything with intrinsic aesthetic value is subjective, there are of course those who know and those who don't know. That sounds terribly arrogant, but it is the truth.

I might create something which my client really likes, but that I will not put in my portfolio because I see many things which I wouldn't do given the option. Does that make more sense?

I'll add that sometimes in life it isn't about the portfolio, but it is about getting that check.

And that’s why there are still people who have mullets…. ;-)

Yes, bad design exists.

Not all of Design is subjective - certainly not all of
text typography. That would make it Art (god forbid).

Or Science (god forbid). But I would argue that text typography is subjective...individually, culturally, and historically.

> text typography is subjective

Party, yes. Everything is (even Science).
But for example ignoring that serifs help readability is... worse than a mullet!

hhp

> But for example ignoring that serifs help readability is… worse than a mullet!

That's quite a strong statement; seemingly hyperbole, and calls into question your fashion sense.
; )

PS, can someone go back to Jupiterboy's post and add the /cite please?

How is it now. I used that command in the original post and it was showing up as ital for me as usual. ?

Fixed!

It’s like going to the dentist and telling him what and how to do it. Seems realistic? Not really.

But unfortunately there are many people out there that they think they can outsmart the dentist. Of course they’re the ones that end up with “worst teeth”.

Apologies to everyone for taking this Off-topic.

Litera - I learnt from a wonderful GP in New York to question every doctor I go/speak to. I'm glad I do it -- sometimes without thinking. 30 years ago, I went to a dentist on an emergency. He said I needed 2 root canals (because he didn't know which tooth was bothering me, and it wasn't clear on the x-rays). I said thank you, but no thanks. Took something to deaden the pain -- and drove home. The next morning I saw my own dentist. Well, a small bit of food had gone below gumline and was irritating a tooth. He removed it with a good cleaning, and I've never needed the root canals.

So yes, some of us do speak to the dentist - and know to get a second opinion.

Now you can go back on-topic. I am sorry, but I couldn't let that statement sit there like it's correct. All doctors are human beings - and they do make very human errors. There are no gods among MDs or DDSs -- and one needs to know, not just to ask questions - but which questions. Honestly, I didn't want to help put that other dentist's kids through college.