Ellipsis style?

[black currant]

This topic was imported from the Typophile platform

Hello All,
I work at a magazine and we're discussing our use of the ellipsis. Currently, we use period, full space, period, etc. and I find it makes me crazy. There's just way too much space. I suggested using period, thin space, period, etc. but a friend told me I should just use the glyph since that's what it's there for.

What type of ellipsis are people using these days?

Thanks!

[pattyfab]

It makes me crazy too (period/space/period/space/etc) but that seems to be the standard in publishing. The other problem with it is line breaks, I often have to track it up to get all three periods on the same line. I vastly prefer the glyph but my editors won't go for it.

[pattyfab]

FWIW here's what Chicago has to say:

Q. Our writing department uses Chicago’s style of putting spaces between the periods in ellipses. The graphic designers argue that in typesetting, the space is much smaller, and so use the ellipses character that is built into our publishing software. Who is correct?

A. Everyone is correct. Chicago uses the spaces, but not everyone follows Chicago style. Someone in your department just needs to pick a style and stick with it. If you use the ellipsis character, make sure your typesetters know whether you want spaces between the dots.

(of course the last sentence of the answer makes no sense - if you use the ellipsis character you can't put spaces btw the dots)

[Ch]

... period period period.

no spaces, period.

[dtw]

...in which case you might as well use the ellipsis character. Except when you're using a monospace font, where it looks stooopid.

FWIW, we use the unspaced version in our academic journals...
______________________________________________
Ever since I chose to block pop-ups, my toaster's stopped working.

[Dunwich Type]

I use the ellipsis character. If I didn’t, my editors would be very unkind.

[black currant]

I'm just about to go into a meeting about this with our editors. I think I will suggest using the glyph. The dot/thin space/dot might be too much for them. Oh God, then there's the problem of ellipsis ending in a period... .

[charles_e]

black current:

Be aware that there are multiple styles -- Associated Press has one style, Chicago another, Modern Language Association another . . .

Consider this, too. If you use a fixed space between the points in (and perhaps around) an ellipsis, you have a character that takes up an em's worth of space or more, conjoined to a word that probably takes up several ems worth of space. You also remove those spaces within the ellipsis as "justifying" spaces in a line. Finally, many editors also don't want to have an ellipsis begin or end a line. All right, now if you follow all these purities (fixed spaces, no line breaks, etc.,) there are going to be times when, in setting justified copy, the few remaining justifying word spaces in a line are either have to be huge (loose line) or tiny (tight line), in order to set the line. I suppose if you are only setting 60 lines -- a brochure -- that can be worked around. If you are setting a book, 7,000 lines, that's a PITA with any author favoring ellipses . . .

BTW, PattyFab, my old Chicago says to use a 3-to-the-em fixed space between the points. (13th ed, section 10.36). That's a honking big space -- bigger than a nominal justifying word space. We tried to make them see the error of that spec when we wrote the glossary; dunno if they made a change in later editions.

Charles' favorite dictum: "All editors, and all designers, would be better at their jobs if they had set type for a while."

[eliason]

I wish, when putting an ellipsis character after an actual period, that the spacing between the period and the first ellipsis dot matched the spacing between the ellipsis dots.

[jupiterboy]

^ that's what the editors want! And with OpenType maybe we will see an ellipsis with period character.

[kentlew]

Most editors are traditionalists and will prefer spaced periods. Most typographers consider this to be usually too much space.

Periods set tight are too tight. Looks miserly.

I think that using the ellipsis character can have it's own problems. For one thing, the design (spacing) of the ellipsis character can vary greatly among designers/foundries. Some are too tight, some are too loose. Usually the spacing between ellipsis and period has not been taken into consideration.

Charles mentioned the problems with justifying, and Patty mentioned the problem with line breaks. (Patty, I can't remember how I used to do it in Quark, but you can search out the sequence period-space-period-space-period and substitute non-breaking spaces. I think you might have to export the text as tagged text and use the code for the non-breaking space, then re-import. It's been a while.)

After some consideration, the practice I've arrived at in my own type designs is to space the ellipsis periods with an interval equal to the space character -- this yields an ellipsis which is a little tighter than spaced periods because is leaves out the sidebearings from the period character, but is looser than unspaced periods.

I then set the sidebearings on the ellipsis so that when set alongside a period, the space between the two is consistent with the internal spacing of the ellipsis (this yields sidebearings on the ellipsis that are wider than the period).

While I do some pair-kerning with the period, I don't apply the kerning values to the ellipsis. So there's a subtle distinction between period-ellipsis and ellipsis-period sequences, which shows up in the spacing relationship with the surrounding characters. I feel these differences support the subtle distinctions in how/why an author might sequence the two in either fashion.

-- K.

[will powers]

My 2 cents:

** If you use the ellipsis character with justifying spaces flanking, you will at times end up with huge word spaces throughout the line, and then those tiny spaces between the ellipsis points. Looks really stupid. In fact, it says to me "the person who designed this layout or set this type . . . doesn't know how to make a line look good."

** I am not a strong believer that an ellipsis should not start a line. As a reader I find it no impediment to moving through the text. As a typographer, that little bit of open space does not look bad. Allowing a line to start with an ellipsis may also be a way to solve some other spacing problems.

** My preferred method is to use thin spaces within and flanking the ellipsis. If you have designed your text well, and used H&Js that will give you nice, tight word spaces, the thins won't be that much different from the justifying spaces. This is what Al Johnson at Phoenix Type here in Minnesota does when he sets type for me.

** If all typeface designers took the care with the ellipsis (and with other sorts) that Kent does we'd all be better off and be able to go home earlier. Few do, though.

** Don't let editors badger you about type . . . or ellipses. Teach them what looks good.

** I was going to use the ellipsis character in this post, to make a point (so to speak), but I don't know where it is. I guess I don't really care since I'll never use it.

powers

[pattyfab]

If you use QUARK you can set up kerning pairs for multiple periods...

** Don’t let editors badger you about type . . . or ellipses. Teach them what looks good.

but a lot of publishers have "house style" and aren't very flexible about it.

[will powers]

>> a lot of publishers have “house style” and aren’t very flexible about it.

I know. I just can't stop myself from saying crap like that. Because I believe it. & I have taught some editors better style.

powers

[will powers]

The current (15th) edition of "Chicago" does not specify the amount of space to be put between ellipsis points. It just refers to "three spaced periods." See 11.51 through 11.66. After that initial mention of "three spaced periods" they go on to refer to "dots" rather than periods.

In 14 they still specified those godawful 3-to-em spaces Charles mentioned. In 15 they got it right.

Time marches on . . . and wounds all heels.

powers

[microspective]

Try no spaces with generous tracking.

[Don McCahill]

This is, I think, another typewriterism that plagues typesetters. On a typewriter, there is no ellipsis character, so you have the choice of three periods, or three periods separated by spaces. The former is too tight, the latter is better, but too wide. Because it is better, it becomes the standard.

Fifty years pass. Typewriters become extinct. Computer fonts do have ellipsis characters, but people who grew up with the typewriter spaced versions think they look too tight. It is like the second space after a period, which we are just now beginning to train typewriter-indocrinated people to omit.

The solution is simple. Use the character that a professional typeface designer created to look perfect with his or her font. If that character is wrong, then you probably have a poorly designed font.

[black currant]

I just got out of the copy-related-design-elements meeting and we will be using the glyphs that come with our font. I had to argue it though. I also pushed for thin-space before and em-dash (instead of a full space) but that was a no-go (although, an editor said she agreed with me philosophically).

I agree with you Don that people are extremely attached to these "typewriterisms". I still get stories full of double spaces before each sentence.

Thank you all for your comments!

[eliason]

I was going to use the ellipsis character in this post, to make a point (so to speak), but I don’t know where it is.

Option-semicolon on my mac … FWIW

[charles_e]

Try no spaces with generous tracking.

So, only computer composition with application programs that support tracking can set "good" type? And you wonder why editor's tend not to listen to designers?

[Nick Shinn]

I wish, when putting an ellipsis character after an actual period, that the spacing between the period and the first ellipsis dot matched the spacing between the ellipsis dots.

Your wish is granted.

[Ch]

smackdown: … vs. ...
and the winner is... … !

[Nick Shinn]

Isn't the traditional method for foundries to make the ellipsis em-width?
Does that still have any merit?

[kentlew]

> This is, I think, another typewriterism that plagues typesetters. On a typewriter, there is no ellipsis character,

I'm sorry, but I don't buy this "typewriterism" theory. There was no ellipsis character in the foundry case or on the Linotype/Monotype keyboard either, back when the typewriter was commonplace. The ellipsis was always formed from periods and spaces. The difference was that the typesetter had a variety of spaces at his command. The "typewriter-er" did not.

I don't think there existed a pre-composed ellipsis prior to digital type.

> Use the character that a professional typeface designer created to look perfect with his or her font. If that character is wrong, then you probably have a poorly designed font.

I actually don't think most typeface designers create the ellipsis to look perfect with their fonts, since perfect (in the case of the ellipsis) is a function of the setting, not the typeface design.

Personally, I don't advocate the use of the pre-composed ellipsis for the reasons cited by Will and Charles. Given that it exists as part of the standard character set, I try to design it with care. But I don't use it myself.

> Isn’t the traditional method for foundries to make the ellipsis em-width?
Does that still have any merit?

For all the reasons cited here, I think the em-width approach has no merit. I think this was another "standard" developed by early digital pioneers who weren't actually typesetters.

-- K.

[microspective]

So, only computer composition with application programs that support tracking can set “good” type? And you wonder why editors tend not to listen to designers?

Not at all what I was getting at. I was simply offering one solution that I prefer, like many of the other posters on this thread. No need to get unchuffed.

Tracking, by the way is not limited to computers, predated by letter-spacing, as I'm sure you know. : )