On the readability of pages
I'm taking a forced break from Aurealis reading because the print is so small that my eyes were hurting and I need a break. My break consists of a cuppa and some work at the computer.
I don't know why some publishers decide on tiny type, for each cent they save in printing they lose a reader who reads in dim light, or with dim eyes, or with other issues. I was going to read my books in a rational order, but now the rationality consists of one book in reasonable print and one book in far-too-small print, for otherwise I shall never reach the more difficult ones and those novels are worth reading, even if it hurts. The physical pain won't affect my thoughts about the books themselves, but it certainly lessens my opinion of book design at that publishing house.
In this world of ebooks, paper books that are so difficult to access ought to start disappearing. Instead, they're becoming increasingly common. I don't know whether it's to keep the costs down, or whether they're using the same typeset version for both paper and electronic and haven't considered the consequences of the size of the type (although it isn't type anymore, is it, for it's all done electronically? - my descriptions used to be so precise and now they're a bit tangled).
It's arguable, I guess, that YA books have smaller print because YA eyes are better than older eyes. Except they're not always better. My correction was this drastic when I was a teenager: I would have had just as much trouble then as I have now.
For the record, my favourite typefaces for modern printed books are Minion or Garamond, but I'm open to persuasion on that. I'm not open to persuasion concerning the accessibility of books that need a magnifying glass to read.
I still have the magnifying glass (with light!) I bought for examining medieval manuscripts (the curator at Chantilly was so impressed with my earlier version, but this newer one is way superior). I might haul it out and do 50% of my reading with its assistance. It'll be a pain, not not nearly as much of a pain as my eyes if I don't.
I don't know why some publishers decide on tiny type, for each cent they save in printing they lose a reader who reads in dim light, or with dim eyes, or with other issues. I was going to read my books in a rational order, but now the rationality consists of one book in reasonable print and one book in far-too-small print, for otherwise I shall never reach the more difficult ones and those novels are worth reading, even if it hurts. The physical pain won't affect my thoughts about the books themselves, but it certainly lessens my opinion of book design at that publishing house.
In this world of ebooks, paper books that are so difficult to access ought to start disappearing. Instead, they're becoming increasingly common. I don't know whether it's to keep the costs down, or whether they're using the same typeset version for both paper and electronic and haven't considered the consequences of the size of the type (although it isn't type anymore, is it, for it's all done electronically? - my descriptions used to be so precise and now they're a bit tangled).
It's arguable, I guess, that YA books have smaller print because YA eyes are better than older eyes. Except they're not always better. My correction was this drastic when I was a teenager: I would have had just as much trouble then as I have now.
For the record, my favourite typefaces for modern printed books are Minion or Garamond, but I'm open to persuasion on that. I'm not open to persuasion concerning the accessibility of books that need a magnifying glass to read.
I still have the magnifying glass (with light!) I bought for examining medieval manuscripts (the curator at Chantilly was so impressed with my earlier version, but this newer one is way superior). I might haul it out and do 50% of my reading with its assistance. It'll be a pain, not not nearly as much of a pain as my eyes if I don't.
No comments have been added yet.
