Interestingly enough, my kid has some flashcards for early reading exposure. The words are about an inch tall, red, and in a serif font that might be New Century Schoolbook. Apparently the authors of the kit also believe serifs increase quick word recognition.
And no matter how easy it might be to read double-column specs on the page, I can’t imagine editing them on the screen. What a pain! John, do you edit the specs in a single column and convert them when you’re done if you want double columns?
Over 15 years ago, I developed a double-columned spec section for use on smaller projects where an abbreviated spec format was appropriate. It was and still is favorably received. I would use this style a lot more if my projects were smaller or of limited scope - which they arent.
My pages are formatted for single side printing using a 1" left margin, 1/2" right margin, and either a 0.1" or 0.2" space between columns. The font is a 10-point Arial. I further condense the text by eliminating all article, paragraph, and subparagraph numbering and lettering but retaining the 3-part format (but not identified). The article or paragraph key words are underscored and with small bullets indicating subparagraphs. I also use the line numbering feature outside the left margin.
With further judice editing of the text, sections can be as short as one or two pages. I have used this format on projects up to $1M, but it was the exception. It works well for residential, interior commercial-retail retrofits, pre-engineered buildings, and similar projects.
I write for the ease of the end-user who generally does not speed read nor reads a lot. In fact, I would be greatly honored if the spec was folded up and carried around in the contractors hip pocket.
The above format works well with either single- or double-columns. The conversion from a single-column to a double-column is only two clicks [using WordPerfect] so choose your methodology.
There are many enhancements to the page format for specifications that can and maybe should be done. However, remember that it is not only the (architectural) specifications writer who produces specifications. Traditionally, there are specification sections produced by mechanical and electrical engineers and by specialty design consultants such as the food service equipment designer, medical equipment designer, low-voltage systems (“Division 17”) designer and roofing and waterproofing consultants. Some of these consultants have only rudimentary word processsing capabilities.
If the (architectural) specifications writer reformats specifications produced by others, then perhaps the exotic format and typeface (font) can be used. In my experience, however, it is preferable to use a “plain vanilla” format and typeface to avoid spending considerable time trying to get consultant specs to blend in.
I use Arial 10pt for specifications because it is a universal font for contemporary word processing programs.
When deciding upon a new “office standard” I fought for and won the serif argument. I then went and searched the topic on the web and found that:
I was wrong (kind of)
Familiarity with the type face issue was more important.
And for SCREEN fonts the test results from studies were a mixed bag some leaning towards serif and some towards san-serif.
I had a harder time finding good test results on print media. I did find references leaning towards serifs.
I did not go back to my bosses and change my mind. I like Times Roman. I like century schoolbook but too many consultants do not have it so Ive settled there. I use 11 point.
(Oh BTW the reports on screen fonts almost universally agreed on between 10 and 12 point for size.)
Interesting conversation. Ive always heard that serif fonts are easier to read / comprehend, but not in small sizes where the letters can run together. I have always used a Sans Serif font (currently Arial 10 point) for that, and one other reason. With most serif fonts, the numeral 1 and the lower case l (el) are nearly identical. It doesnt happen often but Ive seen cases where the two characters have been confused or at least confusing. Paragraph 1.l comes to mind as a simple example. I dont have that problem with a sans serif font.
Regarding page formatting, I always thought that I was anal. I have given up years ago in trying to get consultants to conform to my specific page formatting. And No, I have not won any specifications competitions. Personally I cant think of any other reason why I would care if the Division 26 specs looked like they came out of my computer. In fact it is sometimes a benefit to be able to simply look at a spec section and identify it as the work of a Consultant. I do insist that all consultants use my official Page Header format with my Project Title and Project Number at upper right hand corner (apologies to CSI Page Format) and Clients Project specific information at upper left if applicable. Sometimes I have to threaten to hold my breath just to get them to do that! I am For Sure not going to spend any of my time reformatting specs from others just to make them all pretty!
In reply to Vivian’s query: I haven’t done a spec in two-column format, just responding to some I’ve seen. One client the-Valley Transportation Authority in San Jose-uses that for their front end documents and it worked okay since the font was small.
I generally edit in “normal” view (not “print layout”) in Word so I don’t have the distration of text popping around as pagination does it’s thing near the end of the page, nor the wasted space showing me header and footers. Plus, I set Word to wrap text to the screen margins in Normal view so I use the full width of my screen. I get much more text visible that way. If I was to produce specs in two-column or any other format, I’m sure I’d work the same way.
We also had a tough time getting consultants to reformat their specifications to our format when we did the two column approach with lines numbered down the middle of the page. We’ve changed back to single column since, for various reasons.
We normally print our spec books with different colors for different disciplines … blue for civil consultants, green for mechanical, yellow for electrical, etc. Then, we can quickly identify Div 2, 15 or 16, etc.
The firm I worked for in Connecticut used Arial 11pt. which I tend to like.
In the firm that I am now with in California we decided on CG Times 11pt for the body of the text and 12pt for section number and title. It’s okay, but I still like Arial better, but it’s not my call.
I’ll throw any scenario in the mix-- we moved from Times Roman to Tahoma, 11 point, with bold face for Section numbers and titles, Part indications, and numbered articles.
More readable [good text to white space ratio]; more strength in the printed text; data more readily located; removed “academic paper” look that we had.
We feel this adds a positive dimension to the specs, and this is reflected in the comments we have received. Some may call it is pure pazazz, but we tried other fonts,and settled on Tahoma. We are an A/E firm, so we do not encounter consultants or other points needing coordination.
… but I swear it was in self-defense (there are definitely days that I get a good laugh from this group).
Our office is standardized on Ariel. We use 10 point Ariel for our specifications with an 8 point Ariel for the footer. SpecLink’s “standard” is 10 point Ariel so we decided it was easier to switch ours (it used to be Times Roman 10 point) to match.
Ralph, the reason Tahoma is so easy to read on the screen is because Microsoft commissioned the font specifically for use with Internet browsers. Tahoma and its sibling Verdana (spaced a bit wider) are included in every copy of Windows/Internet Explorer. Since it is so universal, most consultants should be able to reproduce it. It is also one of those new fonts that include all the foreign characters.
If specs are destined to be used on construction sites with wireless tablet computers, then readability on screen will be more critical than what it looks like on paper. Your use of 11 point may be an advantage as well. Since larger electronic files don’t waste paper, the larger font size will not be a disadvantage.
oh why not throw in my 3 cents here, too…
Every office I’ve worked in has gotten in some uproar over the fonts for the specs, and I’ve been pretty insistent and usually get my own way. Originally, government specs were required to be in Courier, and so that was the office standard at my old firm for a long time. When I had a choice, I switched to 10 or 11 point New Times Roman, primarily because I think its easy to read, every word processing program had it (which used to be an issue); it laid out nicely on the page, and came in both italic and bold version, and it scaled up and down in size for headers/titles, and such.
As for two column format: I think this is the most stupid idea I’ve seen in a long time. It does not increase the content of the page; makes it IMPOSSIBLE to annotate for addenda (especially if printed double sided) and impossible to reference for addenda, and makes my eyes hurt. We are working with an associated architect who insists on double-column specs, and I refused to do it without a lot of additional fee.
I mark up my specs electronically on a tablet PC and the double-column format makes that harder, as well – there just isn’t enough space in the margins for comments.
I also resist having to change fonts unless we are being paid additional to do that. I know its easy to do electronically, but every type face lays out differently on the page, and if you change a font (even at the same size) I feel as though every section should be printed and reviewed for page layout.
And David – I bet if you just changed your font and didn’t tell anyone, no one would really care. It goes into that “ask forgiveness, not permission” thing.
If I changed the font without asking, the old guy in the office will blow a gasket. I guess I will wait until he retires.
FYI, He originally wrote specs in Times Roman but changed to Sans Lucida Unicode when his cataracts made it hard for him to read the computer screen.
I understand that Courier was orginally used in specs because it closely resembled a typewriter (remember those things?). That way corrections could be typed in.
When CAD first came out, most architects chose ArchStyle font to emulate hand lettering. The thought was that corrections could be hand lettered on the drawings.
We once had a client that was upset that we did not use CAD for our drawings. We had drawn the entire project on CAD but used the ArchStyle font. So we changed the font on the drawings to Arial and he was happy.
you’re right from my experience about Courier: when I first started doing specs, we had a mag-card and the word processor (the person, not the software) worked very strict 8-5 working hours. I used to stay until midnight some nights, making corrections by whiting out the text, and either inserting (with X-acto knife and tape) or overtyping in the typewriter the correct text. We were doing only government work at that time, so the Courier font was required. (we had IBM Selectric typewriters, which meant we could change out the type balls if needed.)
Arial 10 point for text. Ariel 7 point for footer that includes architects name, section name, project number on first lint, and project name, section-page number, and issue date on second line.
Im thinking about changing to Ariel 9 point for the text in hopes to use less paper.
Our multiple-discipline, multiple office firm uses Times New Roman 11 throughout the specs, with levels 1 and 2 in capitals and bolded.
Our footers consist of section name and number and project number. Simple, but macros make the editing for different projects a snap.
We use 1 column for Division 1, and 2 columns for Divisions 2-16. We like the readibility and have had no complaints. It’s very easy to use and on-screen review is easy on the eyes.
We also adhere strictly to CSI formatting and rules, some of which I don’t like such as periods after lists and capitalization rules, but as with others of you, I can’t budge the decision makers.
We (Perkins + Will, Dallas) use Arial 10 point for text, 9 point for footers; Bold all caps type for section number and title, Part headings, and End of Section; all caps (but not bold) for Article headings. I believe the Chicago and L.A. offices use 11 point Times Roman. Not sure about the others.
Like many others, we have had some difficulty in getting consultants to adhere to SectionFormat, MasterFormat, and our page format. Switching to two columns - although easier to read as it may be - would surely prove to be an insurmountable hurdle. We can’t even get them to use MF '95 section numbers.