Let me clarify my original comment in USMA 9540 that stirred up this debate.
I don't object to adopting ISO paper sizes AFTER we metricate. But I don't
think adopting them will ENCOURAGE Americans to metricate. In fact, I'm
quite sure it would have the opposite effect, turning folks against SI if
they perceive ISO sizes as "metric."
For the vast majority of North Americans, whether they use inches or
millimeters, ISO paper offers no obvious advantage. Indeed, A4 paper
dimensions make metric seem complicated and irrational, and they cause
headaches with binders and filing cabinets. (A4 sticks out 5 mm from our
standard binders. While it theoretically fits in a 12" (305 mm) letter-size
cabinet, it tends to hang up on the pendaflex rails. In both cases documents
tend to get torn and dog-eared. This is such an irritation that when I get
documents on A4, I cut them off.)
The fact that one huge size of ISO paper, which most people will never see,
happens to be 1 square meter in area, a quantity most people are never
concerned with, does not make it "metric." The vast majority of paper users
are concerned only with the dimensions of the paper, which they need both
for identifying and choosing a size and for arranging material on the paper
(text, tables, columns, pictures, etc., etc., etc.).
I've done a little surveying on this. NOT ONE of our international students,
all very bright top-notch students, knew the dimensions of the standard A4
paper they have used all their lives. Nor did they know that ISO paper has a
one-to-the-square-root-of two ratio, or that A0 paper is 1 square meter. By
contrast, EVERY ONE of the American students I surveyed knew the dimensions
of our common letter paper, 8.5 x 11". Even the designations of ISO paper
are backwards and wombatiferous, like our "gauges"--the bigger the size, the
smaller the number. Logically, it should be the other way around. How are we
supposed to convince Americans that ISO paper is "good for them" if
thoroughly metric folks who use it every day don't understand it?
I think if the whole North American continent switched to A4 tomorrow, it
wouldn't induce anyone to metricate. People who like inches would simply
describe it as 8.3 x 11.7" (as they do now), which is just as easy as 210 x
297 mm.
If you're designing a series of nesting paper sizes, you have two options.
You can't have both:
(a) rational dimensions with two alternating shapes, OR
(b) irrational dimensions with one shape (1:sqrt2).
Both options have their advantages and disadvantages. The North American
series chose the first option, while the ISO series chose the second. I
perfectly understand the advantage of a uniform shape when you're enlarging
and reducing to the next larger or smaller size, as in CAD engineering. But
I think that for most people the advantages of the first option are greater.
The word "rational" has two meanings when applied to measurements:
(1) logical, reasonable, convenient, rounded
(2) mathematically can be expressed as the quotient of two integers
The American dimensions are rational in sense 1 and the shapes are rational
in sense 2. By contrast, ISO dimensions are irrational in sense 1 and the
shapes are irrational in sense 2.
As for areal density, US paper is labeled in g/m2 just like ISO paper.
Certainly this is more sensible than the traditional "pound", "sub", or
"basis weight", where the size of the unit varies for different classes of
paper. (I have yet to find a stationery clerk who understands this crazy
system.) But all these density numbers are used mainly for indicating
relative thickness. In the extremely rare case where you actually weigh some
pieces of paper to determine its areal density, it's just about as easy to
calculate g/m2 with US sizes as it is with ISO sizes. (In fact, the area of
the common sheets is almost identical: 0.060 m2 for ANSI-A and 0.062 m2 for
ISO-A4. For practical purposes the calculation is the same in both systems.)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Han Maenen
> >
> I agree with Chris on all points. It is true that the sizes of A paper are
> irrational but to me only in in the sense that we often talk
> about rational
> or irrational ifp or metric sizes, but A series start with a square meter.
> One simply uses the A-designation, not the sizes.
>
> To me A-sizes *are* metric, it is interesting that they are based on the
> binary system, the best of two worlds! I loathed having to use inch size
> paper in the past with dot matrix printers; I used the 12 inch size.
> I looked at this as a dangerous ifp invasion.When the new laser and inkjet
> printers allowed people to revert to A sizes, and they did so massively, I
> was relieved. Gone are they days when non-metric computer paper
> was stacked
> up high in computer shops. An ifp assault on Europe was repulsed!
>
> And boy, how much do I hate soft metric! Indeed, 568 mL milk cartons are
> ridiculous, not a sign that a nation is going metric. We used to label USA
> paper as 11 inch* 210 mm! This IS irrational and NOT the meaning of
> irrational in the technical sense.
>
> Han
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > The ubiquity of A4 paper was one of the most potent signs to me that
the
> UK was serious about going metric.
> >
> > > Chris KEENAN
> > UK Metrication: http://www.metric.org.uk/
> > UK Correspondent, US Metric Association
> >
> >
>
>
