 |  |  |  |  | ||||||
 | | | | | | | | | | |
 |  |  | |||||||
 | |||||||||
 |  | ||||||||
 | |||||||||
 | |||||||||
 | |||||||||
 | |||||||||
 | |||||||||
 | |||||||||
| | | | | | | | | |
 | ||
| | |
Spacing Word and letter spacing One of the most surprising aspects of our work was that the children in our tests could see very little difference between what we considered to be extreme variables both in horizontal (word and letter) spacing and vertical (line) spacing. This surprised us because typographers think spacing - between words, letters and lines - is as important as choice of typeface, if not more so, in making sure that text is easy to read. The teachers in Raban's survey also thought spacing, especially word spacing in the case of younger children, was important, though not as important as type size or typeface. We showed the children four letter spacing and four word spacing variants. More noticed differences in letter spacing than differences in word spacing. Of the 24 children in the sample, 22 could see differences in letter spacing. 17 children thought that the very tight setting looked the most difficult to read. They thought that the tight spacing made the type look darker, thicker or smaller: '[tight spacing is] most difficult, squashed together, you cannot see what the words say'; '[tight] is most difficult [the words are] stuck together'. 10 children (plus one who thought that both wide and very wide looked easiest) thought that the very wide setting looked easiest to read. Perceptions about word spacing were less conclusive. Of the twenty-four children who talked about their preferences only thirteen could see any differences. Of these thirteen, three thought the tight spacing was the easiest to read: '[tight word spacing has] small space, big writing [and is] easier to read.', but five thought that the very wide setting was the easiest: '[the words are] wide apart [and] easiest to read'. As with word and letter spacing our tests with different versions of line spacing did not reveal any statistically significant results, but once again the children's comments about the different versions were very interesting. Over three quarters of the children could see differences of some kind at some level. Nine of these seventeen correctly referred to the line spacing as the reason for the difference they saw. Others thought they saw differences in factors such as type size, type weight, ease of content and quantity of text. This suggests that while beginner readers may not be consciously aware of line spacing, it does nevertheless influence their perception of text in subtle ways. When the children were asked which version they found easiest to read, there was a tendency for those who answered to prefer the wide and normal spacings, usually for reasons relating to the spacing or the apparent size of the type. Opinions on the hardest version were more evenly divided, but when the children were asked which version they would like to take home, 16 of the 24 chose either the wide or normal spacing. They gave a variety of reasons, six basing their choice explicitly on aspects of spacing and three on the perceived size of the type. The children's comments suggest that line spacing comparable to our normal or wide versions is likely to be the most acceptable for the majority. Given that the normal spacing was typical of that seen in contemporary reading schemes for beginning readers, it would appear that current practice is generally appropriate but that no harm would be done by using slightly more generous spacing. However, some of the comments made do indicate that line spacing can be too open as well as too tight. | ||||||
 | ||||||
 | ||||||
The same portion of text, with very tight (top) and very wide (bottom) word spacing. | ||||||
 | ||||||
 | ||||||
The same portion of text, with very tight (top) and very wide (bottom) letter spacing. | ||||||
 | ||||||
 | ||||||
 | ||||||
 | ||||||
The same portion of text, with line spacing ranging from very tight, normal, wide, and very wide. | ||||||
| | | | | | |