I hope that I am not the only one who doesn�t know, but... are �bouncing folios� those whose positions change from page to page?

With sheepishly admitted ignorance,
Dana

Dana, I too haven't a clue what is going on here, but my curiosity is piqued!

You mean folios that move up and down in relationship to the length of the text above, yes? So the folio is in a fixed relationship to the text block, rather than to the page.

This can look nice, and avoids having the odd folio off by itself, but it is functionally, well, moronic. I would classify this practice as the tyranny of aesthetics over functionality, because although it looks nice it largely defeats the practical purpose of having folios in the first place. Let's say you have looked up a chapter or section heading in the table of contents, or have looked up a entry in the index, you then need to be able to find the relevant page. So you flip through the book to find the appropriate folio. Obviously this is very much easier if the folios are always in a fixed position relative to the page.

If you're talking about what I think your talking about--I am slightly confused--I've always seen this done with older texts (older as in hundreds of years) being redone. And I've always held on to the belief that the folios were moved to correspond with how the original book's pages.

That way no matter what version of the book you have, you can refer to page such and such, and everyone will go there. Kind of like the numerals beside each line of poetry or of a play. Does that make sense, or are we discussing something totally different?

Hey, I just posted that and it didn't tell me there was an error. Maybe T-phile going down was its way of going to sleep and sweating out the flu?

Anyone else as hopeful as me?

I assumed the question was about the physical position of the folios on the page, DeWitt, since David identified this as a design issue. What you are referring to, i.e. matching pagination of a previous edition, would be an editorial issue.

Man do I not have the faintest idea the hell this is about.

Does anybody have a pitchur or something?

hhp

My experience has been that there are significant aesthetic disadvantages to bouncing folios.

Too often, the the result is a cocked spine if the folio is bounced from 216 picas or higher.

Try to reason with your boss and hope he doesn't throw the book at you instead.

Wow, a third interpretation of what is meant by bouncing folios!

Does anybody have a pitchur or something?

Here is an illustration of what I understand by David's question. I have increased the size of the folios (i.e. page numbers) in these images for emphasis.

In this first image, the folios are fixed, i.e. their position is relative to the page, regardless of the dimensions of the text blocks.


In this second image, the folios are bouncing, i.e. their position is relative to the text blocks rather than to the page.

Oh, thanks.

To me they both look funny, so I guess putting page numbers on top (or in the middle of the side margins) is better than either?

hhp

Alright, then that's just silly. I'm not sure what benefit could be had from that.

It certainly would function worse and not look any better to my eyes.

By the way, is this what he original poster was talking about?

David?

Sorry for the confusion.

The image presented is somewhat correct. In this case I was refering to trade fiction. When you spec a composition for a type compositor to set, you can request the use of bouncing folios. A folio bounces when a page is being adjusted for bad paragraph breaks. Usually bad breaks are adjusted by making a page one line longer or one line shorter. With bouncing folios on a short page the folio moves up with the bottom line of text, and vise versa on a long page. When flipping through the book you will notice the page numbers fluttering up and down with the last line of text on each page. I think this seems strange but my boss feels that this is the correct way to design a text page. She thinks that page numbers should stay the same distance away from the last line of type on all pages. I think the page numbers are there for a functional-navigational purpose so they should stay fixed in place. I think it's distracting to see a page number fluttering up and down when you are trying to find a specific page. When you are only dealing with a minimum amount of elements it is to me a necessity to harmonize those elements.Bouncing folios are strange, simple as that.

Here's an idea:
When you have to adjust the bottom of the page, omit the page number entirely.
Except maybe when both pages in the spread are like that, then hopefully they're going in the same direction (both one up or one down) and you can put both page numbers in. For spreads that have one short page and one long page, decide if you want it to be slightly ugly or microscopically* dysfunctional.

* Because chances are quite low that the reader will choose to open up to that spread to regain his bearings, and is then forced to go one spread back or forth. In comparison, all readers will traverse that spread at one time, so maybe aesthetics becomes more important.

hhp

John, that second graphic of yours with the moving page numbers just looks wacky.

David, I make your sort of bouncing folios all the time. But I always move the last up up or down equally on both sides of a spread. Also, I usually give a generous bottom margin to my work, so the question of an extended bottom line interfering with a page number or other master item doesn't comes up.

If the amount of bounce is never more than a line, then I think there is a better case to be made for bouncing folios. The 'flutter' of the numbers up and down while you flip through the book may look a little odd, but it does not significantly impede their function. You can, as Hrant suggests, avoid the problem by putting the folios at the top of the page.

It's a common practice to add or remove a line so that you take care of any widows or orphans.

Is it too simple to ask why the folios must be on the bottom of the page?

If you need the folios at all, then move them to the top or side. If on the bottom they must remain, I think you and your boss are both correct it's unlikely the average reader will notice the difference either way. And it certainly won't keep them from purchasing the book.

But why complicate life?

---

quote:

Come up to me, love,
Out of the river, or I will
Come down to you.

James Wright (from To the Muse)

---

From the GLOSSARY OF TYPESETTING TERMS (Chicago, the University of Chicago Press)

�*Bouncing folio.* A page number that changes its position at the bottom of the page when the page is *short* or *long*, since its placement is in relation to the last line of text (except on pages that fall well short, as a chapter ending may). Some designers hold that folios should bounce on long pages only, retaining their standard alignment on short pages . . .�

Bouncing folios are always foot folios -- that is, folios that go at the bottom of the page.

Suppose you specify a page having 39 lines of type with a 13-point linefeed (leading). Suppose you specify the dropped folio or foot folio to be 26 points base-to-base below the 39th text line. Now suppose you have to run a page long to avoid a widow, the beginning or ending of an extract, a subhead etc. -- any of the slings & arrows that outrage page makeup.

If you don't bounce the folio, you can only run short, or the folio will appear just one line below the last text line (no extra space).

If you don't have a reasonable foot margin, bouncing folios can stick out like a sore thumb. There really is no perfect solution. For a text with a folio-running head block at the top of a text page, where the folio is dropped only on a chapter opening page, bouncing the folios seems to do little damage.

BTW, foot folios tend to work better with same-page footnotes, since there is the space above the note to play with, & often the folio won't have to be "bounced."

FWIW,

Charles Ellertson