Awesome!

Yep, that would be entirely incorrect.

I'd say it's the new rule based on both logic, sense and aesthetics.
I know you're in printing right?

You should probably be reading posts for comprehension in this thread, given the two current topics. I did not write what you are claiming I wrote.

Try this: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/semicolon

You can say what you want. You'll be wrong, since it's not a rule and is just a preference, but you can say it. Oh, and if we're doing the rules thing, it's "you're", not "your".

LMAO

I am also true to AP, but I refuse to give up the Oxford comma since clarity and accuracy are paramount. I also set up my company's style guide, and we went to website and email (one word, lower case) three years before AP.

That explains it. Thanks dude.

That is what you wrote. You are saying the extra space helps when reading, and that it doesn't matter for people "who read like shit".

But thats entirely wrong. (don't get offended by the way, I wasn't the one who decided to insult the other's preference. You really did not have to go there)

1) books never use the extra space after 1950 or so. That is a stone-cold fact.

2) The people who are best at reading probably read books more than people who "read like shit"

3) The best readers are therefore accustomed to single space, so the extra space does nothing for them.

So, the extra space either serves no purpose whatsoever, or perhaps it helps people who "read like shit". I pointed this out only because it was amusing to me that the insult you were using, if it applied to anyone at all, probably applied more to people who for whatever reason like the extra space.

If you don't want to use it, that's fine with me. But it is the new rule and is taught as one. It's how typographers always set type. We are all setting type now--just digitally.

Nope. I caught it--a typo. I went back and edited it.

Temper much?

I know what I wrote. I wrote it. You don't seem to to comprehend what I wrote. That's where the issue is, here. You're jousting at a non-existent windmill.

The Oxford Comma
 

No. It's wrong.

http://www.slate.com/articles/techno..._invaders.html

:shake:

Seriously, it's not wrong. There's no right or wrong here. It's a preference born of necessity, from the typewriter era. What the typographers would have been more accurate in saying is that there is no longer a need, in their opinion, for the second space.

You can't just fold your arms and say "thats not what I said, you can't read", when your post looks very clear to me.

Don't be an ass about it, either point out precisely where I'm wrong, or move on.

You are totally correct. Surprised you know this.

Readability is defined as the ability to grasp words quickly with ease.

It has nothing to do do with literacy or legibility regarding the topic of typography. Legibility is being able to determine what the characters are--busy backgrounds, water damage on a page, poor handwriting impair this.

When characters are spaced out too wide, as they are on a typewriter, one tends to grasp characters or words more individually. This slows down recognition. When closer and optically spaced a person can grasp a group of words more rapidly. Hence, readability is about speed. How type is set can aid or impair this.

Sure if one doesn't know what the words mean, they may go slower too but with all things being equal, proper spacing facilitates readability.

Also, applies to how wide a column of type one uses as too much length tires out the reader.