*Some specification writers feel a document on Page Format is not necessary. A few argue it is not even desirable, considering the various forms of typing. Nonetheless, whether a manual, automated, or computer print-out system is employed, each demands this discipline. When the Division and Section Formats were introduced, arguments against uniformity were heard. In each case the arguments failed as widespread use of the Formats brought acceptance. Specification practices have been upgraded through the uniformity provided by widespread use of these formats.
The first concern of the Page Format is an improved and clearer presentation of the construction message. The second concern is to provide a format which can be used with equipment existing in most offices as well as with currently available computer equipment.
In the resulting design of this Page Format, maximum density without obscuring the construction message or hindering rapid reference became the major consideration. The writer and the reader were put before the typist, the printer, the equipment manufacturer, but without placing unreasonable demands upon any of them.
The Page Format should then exhibit a reasonable amount of text density, providing visual recognition of the Parts and lesser levels, and arranging the subject matter in a logical, efficient and versatile page."
excerpts from the CSI Manual of Practice, June 1974*
I couldn’t have said it better. What too many specification writers forget is that specifications are intended to be read, and formatting to make them easier to read is more important than the little extra time it might take to help the reader.
I agree that the point is to make it readable. I do not agree, however, that the examples I used have no effect. How can you say an unreadable font does not interfere with communication? When I preach the PageFormat, I use drawings to make the point; for some reason, people more readily recognize what makes a drawing easy to read. You could use a single line weight for all drawings, but is it not easier to understand if you use multiple weights? If I crowd the details with notes, does that not interfere? What if I use a dense poche that obscures information, or weird fonts, or fonts that are too large or too small? What if I rely on color and not everyone has a color printer? “Those are all obvious!” you say, yet you do not see the similarities in standards for printed text.
Unfortunately, many people have no idea what makes text readable. It looks fine on their monitors, or it looks “nice” when printed, and that’s all that counts. I have seen specs with 8 point fonts, no white space between paragraphs, no indents, and less than half-inch margins. Each of those things, as well as line length, font selection, use of bold, italic, and uppercase, has an effect on reading and comprehension. Just as you try to make your drawings clear and easy to read, so too should you make the specifications as easy to read as possible. Anything less is interfering with communication.
The publishing industry has developed good guidelines for readability, and I have long argued that they should be the basis of PageFormat. Do we actually need a PageFormat? Perhaps not, but if we’re going to have examples of what constitutes readable text, why not have our own guideline that speaks to what we do? It may not be as important as a system to organize construction information, but it does have value. We could do away with MasterFormat, too, and simply tell people to file information alphabetically by product or system or work result.
Basic font: Ornate fonts seem to be an obvious no-no, but I have seen them used. Even more “normal” fonts can interfere with reading if the x-height is too small, if letters are tilted, and so on. Some of them are considered more elegant, and they may be beautiful to look at, but they can be more difficult to read. Today, with text appearing printed, on screen, and faxed, font selection is more important than before. Italics and bold usually decrease readability.
Font size: Too small and you can’t read it (and this becomes more of a problem with age); too large can have the same effect.
Line length: The number of words in a single line affects readability. Depending on writing style, the same text may be more readable in one or two columns.
Uppercase: Government agencies, in particular, seem to believe that text in uppercase has more impact, but it is much more difficult to read.
White space: Judicious use of white space can make it easier to find text and to easily see text grouping, and will produce a higher text density without reducing readability.
Margins: Yes, they are important, if only in printed material. If you’re holding a page, and your thumb covers some of the text, that’s a problem. If you don’t use a gutter, the binding can make it difficult to read text on the bound side of the page.
“Those are all obvious!” you say. Maybe to you, but there is overwhelming evidence that is not the case.
As Marc said, all the stuff will soon be in databases, but even then the format in which it is presented will be important. The importance of readability apparently is not obvious to most. How many websites have you seen that have a tiny font, or black font on blue background, or other “features” that make them unreadable? Same question goes for manufacturers’ literature, on paper, pdf, or any other medium.
To me, it’s clear that the basic rules of presentation are not well-known. When they are, we’ll do away with SectionFormat. Until then, it would serve many specifiers well to take another look.
