Small Caps Setting in Body Text

[Stephen Coles]

Sure, small cap height is a design decision and one size doesn't fit all needs. I just happen to prefer small caps slightly larger than x-height for a majority of the work I do, and that happens to be a reasonable solution to the common problem we're discussing.

There are many possible problems – and solutions.

I'm with you. I'm just adding one more solution to the pot. My tweet sounds more absolute than it should have been.

I read the post not as being against Bringhurst or Tschichold but against following any one or textbook too strictly.

That's a fair reading and I agree with the sentiment. I just found it odd that the typeface design solution was missing.

[hrant]

Karsten, fonts don't make mistakes, but people do, and that includes Burke, FontFont, Bringhurst, and you. I don't understand the resistance to appreciating that in some fonts the caps are large enough that setting them in sequence ruins things, and if their smallcaps aren't too small it solves that problem. Maybe this is yet another case of Modernism's fetish for Simplicity rearing its ugly head? Dunno.

hhp

[hrant]

Thinking about this some more, I think there's a better explanation than -what I view as- Modernism's clash with true functionality. An attempt at some cause-and-effect historical analysis:

Reading has slowly been shifting from an act of reference (where you often look up proper nouns and dates) to an act of entertainment (where you read once, linearly). More significantly, acronyms used to be virtually non-existent, but now they pepper most texts we read. These two phenomena have combined to cause the cap-size requirements of text to shift, but many of the fonts we use predate this, which sets up a conflict between conservatism (which is basically following the rules of a previous generation) and progress (making new rules, which is hard to get right) in the realm of "proper" cap size(s).

Type designers concerned with the full-caps of "old-fashioned" fonts being too large (and the smallcaps being too small to adequately sub in) make them smaller (and/or make the smallcaps larger) and like-minded type users choose fonts along the same lines. This is not the same as saying that one should avoid full-caps as a rule (certainly not for grammatically capitalized words). It simply means that a good cap size depends on context. I think this is a nice refinement, even though it increases complexity. Just like making the effort of choosing a font beyond Times and company.

hhp

[Frode Bo Helland]

Karsten: I did in fact not see the image. I did not suggest Celeste was a poor design, but that designing (and marketing) a face for editorial work with such low sc is.

Small caps in book work is IMO a display feature, much more than a text feature: they are intended to mark the beginning of a chapter, contrast with capitals or sit on it's own line for subheads, running heads etc. In editorial design the function is the opposite.

[Nick Shinn]

Good historical perspective Hrant.

I would add that when words (not acronyms) were set in small caps, they were letterspaced (the traditional precept of all cap setting), in which situation having them lower case x-height was actually preferable to taller. Similarly, old style figures, tabular of course, were very open in fit.

Now, text is much more tightly fitted—kerned, ragged, and with word- and letter-space justification, and word spaces are smaller. In these circumstances, that spacious treatment of figures and x-height small caps is out of place.

[Maxim Zhukov]

I would add that when words (not acronyms) were set in small caps, they were letterspaced

How about both, in the same paragraph, on the same line?!

Here the titles (Empress, Monarchess, Sovereign) are set in small caps without spaces, and the names of their most august carriers (Yekaterina, Pavel) dutifully letterspaced. The source is [Gavriil Derzhavin.] Obyasneniya na Sochineniya Derzhavina. St.Petersburg: Alexander Smirdin, 1834, p. 1.

[k.l.]

I just found it odd that the typeface design solution was missing. [Stephen]

Actually this was the first solution offered, by Frode. Given that the original question was typography related, and its wording implied that typography and typeface are not among the variables, a type design related answer seemed besides the point to me.

I don't understand the resistance to appreciating that in some fonts the caps are large enough that setting them in sequence ruins things ... [Hrant]

Wow. I said that the first answer does not address the question, reminded that smaller small caps do fulfill a typographic purpose, and added that typography offers enough variables to address any problem in more than one way. This is rather the opposite of resisting to appreciating anything.
My own typefaces, by the way, may indicate that I am not a fan of tall caps because they may cause problems.

What I try to resist, in fact, is commenting on otherones' typefaces because (whatever I may think of them based on my conception of type and anticipated use of type) I am certain that their designers had good reasons for making the design decisions they made (based on their conception of type and anticipated use of type).

[hrant]

If I misunderstood you, I'm sorry. There are others [here] however that do clearly seem to think smallcaps are an affectation.

I am certain that their designers had good reasons for making the design decisions they made

To me that's a very peculiar stance, especially when it concerns a craft. Any decision comes in part from misconceptions, and limits on time. For example Mrs Eaves has poor spacing. It's OK to say that. And in your own work, aren't there things you now realize were wrong? In my case I see problems with my work all the time, and sometimes I even have to ignore them. And sometimes others -because they can be more objective, or they have more experience, at least in a certain aspect of the craft- can see such problems before you. Isn't it nice when they help you see them?

hhp

[k.l.]

Of course, based on my conception of type there are things that others do that I don't appreciate and things that I did that I would not do again. But first of all I want to understand why things were made the way they were made, be it a piece of design or a text or anything else. Something that appears wrong at first glance may make perfect sense after considering it a bit and putting it in context of the problem it was made to solve. (I got into type because I found it illogical that, in Times, x-height serifs of n vs v started at different height and set out to "correct" that. I prefer to not comment any further on my former self.) That does not mean that everything is right, though ... Discussing work is necessary but, I think, more fruitful when done in private. It allows both sides to be frank, without one side looking like a fool and the other like the expert coming to the rescue. It also allows discussing both sides' conceptions, the critic needs to know the conception on which the work is based if he wants to offer more than an opinion, the one criticised in turn needs to know the critic's conception to make sense of and evaluate the criticism. Unless one of them is an absolute beginner, any clear-cut right/wrong is likely to disappear in the course of this discussion.

[hrant]

I agree totally with most of what you wrote, especially with the need to put each person's personal objectives in context. Please see my second comment here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56183109@N02/6964823544/in/photostream/

However I see a great many advantages to doing a critique in public, not least that it's dangerous to rely on too few people; and sometimes the best feedback will come from a totally unexpected, unsolicited source. And if a person is too sensitive to criticism, that's his loss. Survival of the fittest! It's also relevant how useful a critique (or really any discussion) is for the person doing it: it forces him to think more clearly, and quite often he learns something himself! And this is amplified when it has do be done in public.

hhp

[Frode Bo Helland]

Your point is valid, Karsten. I did not need to shout “bad design”. I apologize for that.

However, I do honestly think that what you consider standard practice is a misconception when applied to contemporary editorial design.