Dear John and John,
Thanks for your comments. I should have been more careful.
My email to Pierre, with corrections, would now read:
Dear Pierre,
You're right, as a unit, centimetre is too big for type size – and so
is millimetre as it would necessarily involve fractions of some sort
that would significantly delay the metrication process.
I think that the printing industry will eventually get over its
dedication to old mediaeval names for type. Ciceros, didos, ems, ens,
picas, and points (both the UK and USA versions) will eventually be
replaced by a sane and simple metric system. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typographic_unit
to get a taste of the mess the printing industry is in! And see http://www.unitarium.com/font
to see some of the many options available if you want to go down the
conversion path.
To measure letters sanely and simply you could start with measuring
the height of each letter in micrometres.
As the text in books or newspapers tends to be about 3000 micrometres
and using micrometres would have the advantage that all letter height
descriptions would be in whole numbers. Most of these (except for
headlines or headings) would be between 2500 micrometres and 3500
micrometres. See http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/WholeNumberRule.pdf
Lateral measures could also use the same idea with ems and ens
specified in micrometres as well. I know that many will balk at the
idea of a letter m as (say) 5000 micrometres wide because 'the number
is too big'. However consider that you have just won $5000 in a
lottery – is the number still too big?
My studies of metrication processes have shown that – for rapid
metrication – a single choice of a unit name that provides whole
numbers for almost all measurements is the best option. So I am quite
unashamed about using numbers like 4800 micrometres for the size of a
letter used in printing.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
Author of the ebook, Metrication Leaders Guide, see
http://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html
Hear Pat speak at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lshRAPvPZY
PO Box 305 Belmont 3216,
Geelong, Australia
Phone: 61 3 5241 2008
Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has
helped thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the
modern metric system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they
now save thousands each year when buying, processing, or selling for
their businesses. Pat provides services and resources for many
different trades, crafts, and professions for commercial, industrial
and government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and in the USA.
Pat's clients include the Australian Government, Google, NASA, NIST,
and the metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA. See http://www.metricationmatters.com
for more metrication information, contact Pat at [email protected]
or to get the free 'Metrication matters' newsletter go to: http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter
to subscribe.
On 2010/06/21, at 21:08 , John Frewen-Lord wrote:
I checked some books and magazines (North American and UK). Most
type size (upper case, as well as letters with upper extenders) is
between 2.0 and 2.5 mm. Larger for headlines, etc.
John F-L
----- Original Message ----- From: John M. Steele
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 11:28 AM
Subject: [USMA:47888] Re: Type size
Pat,
Double-check those types sizes. I don't think I could read a book
with 0.5 mm type.
I measured text in the Wall Street Journal and a few books. Normal
body text seems to be about 1.4 mm lower case letters, 2 mm
capitals. To include larger fonts in headlines, I would probably
stick with millimeters and one decimal, but micrometers would work
too.
