Depending on the typeface you're using, there may be specifically-designed fractions, which may solve the alignment issue - if you're using an OpenType, it may be worth a hunt through the glyphs.

As far as I know, there's nothing in Bringhurst or Hart's about aligning fractions against the solidus, however Hart's does have a useful section on tables that discusses when to align numerals against the column heading or also with the final digit or decimal point (when the data is related or not). Using that rule of aligning decimal points, it could be reasoned that the same would apply with aligning against the solidus in large numbers (no pun intended) of fractions, preserving the vertical flow.

Hope that helps.

thanks for your help JDL - much appreciated. Bringhurst was (and tends to always be) my first reference. going to have to get a hold of Hunt's book. could I get a title for that?

I attached an image of one of the tables I've constructed - perhaps this will help visualize what my words can't.

I am using the fraction formatting specific to the typeface. maybe the larger issue is how to align the five sub-columns within the "DIMENSIONS" column (the three dimensions and the two "x" that go between them). as you can see, some of the figures really vary in length, which makes it really challenging to develop any sort of alignment parameters for controlling these variables.

thanks again.

You can either get tabular fractions, hang your fractions, or don't run the dimensions with tabs.

In the absence of a visible decimal point, align the ones place. In most situations this will allow you to align the solidus as well, but you can't count on that if you get a big numerator like 15/16.

It is all about organizing information so that it can be quickly understood. If someone is looking through a big list for parts that are 10" long or longer, numbers that have been pushed a whole figure width to the left will be unwelcome distractions.

Have you tried just centering each group of dimensions?

Have you tried just centering each group of dimensions?

Seconded.

I agree with Kevin.
Align them to where the decimal point would be, because the first "at a glance" categorization that is most relevant to the reader is between figures that are integers and those that are part of fractions.
The way you have it now is like flush righting 1.3 and 1.03

Also, you should stick to either old style or lining throughout—those prices in osf are too precious.

Yes, what Nick and Kevin said.

Thanks for the great feedback everyone! Very much appreciated. (And Nick, thanks for the extra suggestion on unifying the figure style.)

Hi Curtis - that one was Hart's Rules, Oxford. The New Hart's Rules is pretty comprehensive - reasonable on Amazon too.

So Nick and Kevin, just to clarify - you are both advocating that the three dimension columns (x, y, z) should be LEFT aligned to the one's place?

Thanks

They should be aligned on the single-digit integer (not quite sure what the correct math term is for that).
That's no different than aligning on "where the decimal point would be", as you're using tab figures.
It's neither left nor right alignment, as the single-digit figures are monowidth

like so? (changed the figure style as well :)

thanks for your help Nick.

Looks good to me, and I think it will make sense to readers.

Another detail: I'm impressed that you aren't using dumb quotes for inch marks, but what you have look more like Hungarian umlauts than inch marks. Are there proper inch marks in the font?

What does –11/–24 refer to? Shouldn't there be more space before the dash?

Might I suggest trying 'length', 'width' and 'height'(or whatever labels are appropriate) columns instead of the 'dimensions' single column divided up with the x?

Thanks Nick. The glyphs for this typeface are pretty extensive. And to be completely honest, I'm not entirely sure if these are the proper inch marks or not. All I know is that they aren't the quote marks.

I think you're also right about the space before the dash. That dimension refers to the thread size on the hub of these wheels. This format is apparently the standard for the industry.

This is Auax, right? I don't think it has the inches or double-prime character. As Nick suspected, you've got the Hungarian umlaut. Probably your best bet in the circumstances though.

Please, what point size are the fractions ultimately set at?

Dave: Correct - Aaux Next to be specific, which is a slightly updated version. (Although apparently not updated enough if it's still lacking proper inch marks.)

David: All the type within the tables is set in 8-point. Aaux Next includes numerators and denominators within the glyph palette.

So in regards to inch marks, seems like it's come down to a matter of choosing between two different Hungarian umlauts. Any opinions on which is working better? I'm kind of gravitating towards the one that sits higher.

"David: All the type within the tables is set in 8-point."

In many cases of such small use, the fractions get light, skinny, short and have need of some of the descender space as well.

David - I agree completely. Initially what I had done was bumped the numerators and denominators up to the next weight in order to make the overall optical weight of the fractions more harmonious with the other figures. However, what I found when doing a test print was that the fractions became TOO weighty due to ink bleed.

Honestly, it was a great reminder to trust in the decisions of the type designer.

David - now I'm second guessing myself.

Obviously, looking at these on screen is not the best way of gauging legibility for print - but take a look and tell me what you think.

ROW 1: unmodified numerators and denominators (all regular weight)
ROW 2: medium weight numerators and denominators
ROW 3: semibold weight numerators and denominators

Thanks.

>Obviously, looking at these on screen is not the best way of gauging legibility for print...

I don't feel qualified to judge legibility for print based on over-sized screen renderings. I was commenting on the overall density of the fractions vs the figs. I'm sure you've solved it as best as possible by now.

Good luck!

I worked in a small agency in the 1980s and designed a few product catalogs for tools companies, which contained tables like this with fractions and inch marks. That gave me an appreciation for this kind of "technical" typography.

It's not the sort of thing that gets much respect in the design community, but it's the real deal.

Based on that experience as a typographer, I've been putting a Fractions feature in all my fonts since OpenType, but have only put proper inch marks in the Modern Suite fonts. Frankly, it doesn't seem worth the effort—primarily because they're so hard to locate in the glyph palette that I doubt people would use them. For serifed fonts, it's easier to get them from the Symbol font.

I did briefly entertain the idea of rendering all my dumb quotes (quotedbl) angled, so they would perform both as inch marks, and as an admonition to typographers to set proper curly quotes—but realized that wouldn't be very user-friendly.