What interests me about this discussion are the accusations of people being wrong, or outdated, or stupid, when in fact they are merely engaging in nonconformity. It made me wince to hear some of the writers make fun of older people, as if they needed to either modernize or go away and die.

In my world, nonconformity is not evil; it is interesting. Whether an artist chooses to use traditional or modern tools is less important than how those tools are utilized by the unique person who wields them. If a composer chooses to use more or less silence in a piece of music, or to place more or less space between phrases, it isn’t right or wrong. It is a choice.

If I enjoy more space between sentences when I am reading, it may be because I want to savor the sentences. Perhaps the extra space on the page encourages me to take a moment and let the words settle within me. Maybe it helps me hear the writer’s voice. Right? Wrong? Ridiculous? Efficient? I don’t know, but as Mahatma Gandhi famously said, “There is more to life than speeding it up.”

So many thoughtful people have taken part in this discussion, including the original post which sought to understand the sensibilities of writers and typographers over the centuries. I enjoyed especially the posts of people who were listening deeply to one another. Thank you for that.

It is noteworthy that the APA in its latest style-guide (sixth edition) has changed its position and now recommends two spaces after a full-stop. Their argument (with which I concur) is that readability is enhanced.

With the caveat that I’m not a professional typographer (I’m actually more centred on mathematics and economics, particularly in terms of academic papers), I find that two spaces aids readability. It seems logical to me, perhaps coming from a mathematical bent, to differentiate the full stop that comes after an initial, with the full stop that comes after the end of a sentence. To my mind, these are different characters, even though they look the same.

I also speak Japanese and it seems similar to the argument for using different kanji characters to represent different ideas, even though they sound the same phonetically and would appear on a page identically if they were written in a phonetic kana syllabary. Differentiating different words by using Chinese characters (meaning that I also side with the kanji traditionalists against the “let’s just write Japanese in kana/romaji” crowd) gives clarity.

I was taught to type by the Royal Navy in 1979 and was taught the two-space rule. Having followed some of the more hysterical rants about double-spacing, I was convinced that the practice did originate with the advent of the typewriter. So, what I particularly enjoyed about this article was the typographic history, and how differentiating an end-of-sentence full stop through the use of an em-quad was actually prevalent, accepted and encouraged long before the advent of the typewriter. I had, hitherto, completely bought into the false history of the more judgemental one-spacers, who had convinced me as a die-hard two-spacer that I was simply an historical anachronism. Now I can view myself as a traditionalist, following the good work of Caslon et al.

I two-space simply because I feel double spacing is more aesthetically pleasing and makes text more readable. Others may disagree, and I respect their differing opinion. But I take extreme umbrage when my typographical choices are criticized, particularly if the criticism comes from people who don’t write well, don’t know what kerning is, and can’t identify a serif. Having said that, some of my best friends are one-spacers and the one-spacer contribution here has been very civil indeed. I’m with the author on tolerance, notwithstanding that I, too, find the re-writing of typographic history offensive.

Perhaps, one day, as in these comments, little double-spacing boys and double-spacing girls will be able to join hands with little single-spacing boys and single-spacing girls as sisters and brothers. And those that are emphatic, on either side of the argument, will be seen for what they are. Bigots.

I don’t notice the difference in books, but on a computer screen I can get jarred when Mr. Doe has no more space after the “Mr.” than before. In TeX I leave the extra space on.

Personally, I think slightly wider spaces after punctuation do improve a reader’s ability to group phrases and sentences together, and I think that’s where the historical traditions came from. But I think it’s a relatively small effect, and I don’t think it’s always relevant for all possible page layouts.

My point wasn’t that “normal” people are producing “junk,” but rather that many people who are certain that particular typographical concerns (like sentence spacing) make the difference between “good” and “bad” typography often don’t know much about the other stuff that is just as useful in making text readable and even beautiful.

Judge people much?

This is why “normal” people look at people who obsess and rant about the width of a space after a period as self-important navel-gazers.