 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | The contents of the Measure (typography) page were merged into Line length on 30 July 2017 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
I'm a bit confused about this, because this seems to just be Line length, with a made up name. Furthermore, someone should point out that CPL isn't a quality measure for line length (here or on the dedicated line length page), because it uses the fallacious (our outdated) notion that all text uses fixed-with glyphs/letters (in some instances it is monospace, but that should be pointed out that this is the only time when CPL should be considered).
Furthermore, CPL isn't much of a factor for legibility as much as word density (words per line/WPL). People read words, not individual letters. Especially considering we have ligatures, kerning and variable width glyphs/letters.
WPL more accurately reflects the line width, and takes precedence over the visual width (although it is and should be constrained by it); especially when combined with word-wrapping, hyphenation and when the text uses justified alignment (variable whitepspace between words).
And personally, I consider the references in the text to be weak.
Omninonsense (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- You have to understand that this format of text was used when typing machines were in use. Journalists would write "one measure of text". Back then, CPL was more important. 78.1.134.175 (talk) 09:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)