CS4 creates less orphan words than previous versions.

In CS4 you can prevent orphaned words with a GREP style. No need for 

new features...

Harbs

That doesn't seem like a disproportional number of orphaned words to 

me...

The question is: how do you define orphaned words (or "runts" as Dave 

likes to call them)? Everyone has their own definition of what's 

acceptable. The simplest definition is below a certain number of 

characters. how many characters is too little for you?

The GREP can be very simple or very complex. It really depends on what 

you call a runt...

Harbs

That doesn't seem like a disproportional number of orphaned words to me...

I agree with that. Given enough text, you will always get one third of your paragraphs ending in the 1st third of the column, one third that ends somewhere around the middle, and one third that seem to fill the entire last line. It's unrealistic to expect every paragraph have exact the same last line length.

Am I a typographer? I'm not sure how to answer this.

I do some typesetting. I know a thing or two about type design and proper composition. I'm quite familiar in OpenType programming. I also have a few really knowledgeable friends to fill in my gaps.

I have not had any official training in typography, and I'm embarrassed to show anyone the first book I ever set. But, I think I've learned a thing or two over the years. There's a lot of people on these forums who know much more than me about type, and I would not go around with the title of "typographer", but I don't think I'm ignorant either.

I have never seen the term "orphans" used for single words on a line. In my experience, orphans and widows are terms reserved for stranded lines. I've just looked into it a bit, and it seems that it's not so clear, and I was wrong to correct you (The Chicago Manual of Style seems to support your view), but I'm not sure that you were right to correct me either... Here's a couple of interesting threads on Typophile: http://typophile.com/node/45331   http://www.typophile.com/node/40359

Regarding your issue: There's quite a few opinions on what's acceptable on short lines/stragglers/runts/orphaned words -- or whatever you would like to call them (I'm calling them runts if you don't mind). Most compositors that I know have no problem with them at all. The most vocal person on these forums who's of the opinion that they are fine (i.e. they do not effect readability in any way, and there's nothing aesthetically wrong with them, etc.) is Dominic Hurley. I haven't seen him around since the forum changeover, but he is arguably the most knowledgeable typesetter who frequented the forums.

I'm not disputing that there are plenty of qualified typesetters who DO have a problem with runts, but even then, there are different opinions on what qualifies as one.

You state that this is a "fault" and a "oversight" that the composer doesn't take care of this. I disagree. How could it be a fault, if it's something that not all typesetters even consider a problem?

I think that including it in the default behavior would be wring because, despite what you believe, forcing words either up or down will upset the optimal spacing. If you force text down, there will be too much space in the previous line, and the composer will have to do its best to equalize the space, but the space will exist.

If there would be an option to control runts, how do you believe it should be implemented?

I'm still waiting to hear what you qualify as a runt, so I can help you out with a GREP to eliminate them!

Harbs

but USA create their own rules regarding everything

That's a pretty disparaging statement! (I'll try not to be insulted, as I am from the US...) Dominic Hurley is not from the US. (He's from New Zealand if I'm not mistaken.) I've seen differing opinions from people all over the world. So while you are entitled to yours, I think it's a bit much to disqualify any other opinion on the subject!

I agree that typography is all about aesthetics (or at least largely so -- readability is at least as important as aesthetics), but what's aesthetically pleasing to one is not to another. Additionally, whether it looks awkward or not has a lot to do with what you are expecting, as well as the line length and a lot of other factors.

I'm not trying to dictate what's acceptable. I'm all for options! I'm just trying to discuss what/how/if this is a good idea! Your original suggestion that this should be part of the paragraph composer is what I disagree with.

Personally, I feel that whether a runt should be dealt with or not is usually a judgment call which kind of makes automation pointless... But like I said, options are great!

BTW, I disagree that ideally a paragraph should end square. In my eye, the ideal length of the last line is between one third and two thirds of the line length and any length under the proper circumstances is acceptable. But, again, that's just my opinion.

Now, down to the nitty gritty:

A keeps option for words will not solve the problem well at all. There's some very long words which do not cause problems in anyone's book. If there would be a keeps option, it would have to be a keeps option for x words under y letters. But then the question is: what if the last word is 3 letters but the previous one is 20? Should you bring the previous word down? Bring the last word up?

Using non-breaking spaces is a poor solution for two reasons. 1) non-breaking spaces are not flexible spaces, so if the spacing is adjusted by the composer, the space between the last two words will look awkward. 2) If the text is subsequently edited, the non-breaking space can end up in the middle of the paragraph.

If you are a stickler to ALWAYS keep the last x number of letters together (and I believe very few people are of that opinion), you can use a GREP style (in CS4) to apply a non breaking attribute to the last x number of characters. In GREP, that would be ("7" being your desired number of characters) You can adjust the number of characters based on your line length:

.{7}$

Of course, if your text is set to hyphenate, the second to last word will probably be hyphenated. You might or might not want that.

If you want all the last words to stay together if part of the word falls within the last x number of words -- even if your text is otherwise allowed to hyphenate, this GREP should do that:

(\w?)+.{7}$

Is there anything which you desire, that these two GREPs do not cover?

Harbs

I don't think I was being rigid at all!

If you read me post correctly, you would have seen that I'm agreeing with you that it should be an option if needed.

I was drawing a distinction between the paragraph composer and keeps options which still seems to have escaped you. The current keeps options has nothing to do with the Paragraph Composer. Aspects of the Paragraph Composer are not options. They are hardwired into the way InDesign composes text. There actually was a recognized bug in the composer in CS3 and earlier which caused the composer to unnecessarily move the last word to the next line under certain circumstances. This has been fixed in CS4.

I'm also not sure if you realize that this is not a place to post official feature requests to Adobe. The is a user forum dedicated to discussing feature request ideas (which is precisely what we are doing). If you want to send an official feature request to Adobe, you can do that here.

I am also not clear whether you are using CS3 or CS4. In CS3 there is the option to do GREP search and replaces, that would allow you to apply the no-break attributes, but in a non-dynamic way. CS4 has a new feature called GREP styles which DYNAMICALLY can apply a character style to text. Are you familiar with GREP styles?

If you set the text with a GREP style using the GREP I posted above, I believe that is a full solution, hence there's no need for a feature request. So, I repeat my question: Does the GREP I posted do everything you are looking for or not?

Harbs

You did not come to the "wrong place". DIscussing potential features is the best way to clarify how strong of a need there is, and how it could be potentially implemented. I do believe that the engineers read these discussions from time to time to get some input, but I do not remember an engineer ever taking part in them.

Forgive me for being obtuse, but I don't understand why GREP styles is a "workaround". GREP styles were created to give you the ability to selectively apply text styling to pre-defined parts of a paragraph. This is precisely what you want to do with a no-break at the end of the paragraph (unless there's more to your request that I don't understand). If they were to implement an additional feature, how should it be different?

"Add orphan control to the multi-line composer" is not a useful request. I tried to explain to you that the paragraph composer is not changeable by options. You are asking for control which has nothing to do with the paragraph composer. Control must be implemented with some kind of user interface which provides the features you need. There must be some explainable algorithm which is used. I think GREP styles already does exactly this. If you want others (including the InDesign team) to accept your request, you will have to explain why GREP styles does not fill the need, and how it should be done instead.

Harbs

Aha. So then we are in fact disagreeing!

I think it would be a very bad thing for the composer to degrade spacing for the sake of avoiding runts. This should be an option only. You seem to feel that short lines under any circumstances are wrong, and you want to force the rest of the world to your point of view. I think you will find very few people sympathetic to this.

FYI, if you apply a no-break to the end of a paragraph and the spacing will be better by bringing text up instead of down, the paragraph composer will bring the text up to tighten spacing, so again, the result of changing the composer will the same as a GREP style, and the potential downside of changing the composer is huge.

I don't think this discussion will get us anywhere, so I guess we should just agree to disagree!

Cheers,

Harbs

Savanahcreative wrote:

 

Kill the orphans, and while you're at it, kill the widows too! Come on Harbs - join the anti-orphan crusade!

That sounds very harsh; killing widows and orphans! My my, what has this world come to...

Cheers,

Harbs

HI Ariel,

True. That does solve problme #1, but problem #2 still remains.

Harbs