Extreme Makeover: Typography Edition
.jpg)
You don't tug on Superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger
And you don't mess around with Jim
(Jim Croce)
Some of you readers will recall that we have had occasion to compare Texas' Chief Justice Jefferson to Chuck Norris. Just like one ought not tug on Superman's cape, a wise man would not tweak Chuck Norris' beard.
But no one has ever accused the Appellate Record of being wise. So we decided to take one of Chief Justice Jefferson's recent opinions and put it through an extreme typographical makeover. After the jump, you'll find out why.
Upon reading the recent opinion in Comptroller v. Attorney General (pdf), I decided to completely re-do it. What possessed me? Why would I think to redo a Jefferson opinion? His reasoning is persuasive, his logic clearly expressed and his syntax easily understood.
But I had no interest in redoing the words, only the typography. And the reason was pages like this and this.
Nothing extraordinary, you say? It looks like it is in generic, 12 point, Times New Roman, double spaced, one inch margins. Everything is put together along the lines of the "typewriter rules" we've been discussing.
So other than aesthetics, what's the big deal? This:
- Because of the string cites and parentheticals, nearly everything on the page is not text at all, but citation that supports the text;
- The substantive result is that Chief Justice Jefferson's own words are obscured and the court's holdings are less clear than perhaps they could be; and
- The Court's words may become even less clear when the slip opinion is reformatted into narrow columns for the bound reporter volume
To me, the court's typographic choices (or the lack of typographic choices and opting for system defaults) are acting at cross purposes with the text--obscuring the substantive message.
Good typography can help your reader devote less attention to the mechanics of reading and more attention to your message. Conversely, bad typography can distract your reader and undermine your message.
* * *
Good typography reinforces the goals of the text.
Matthew Butterick, Typography for Lawyers 24 & 29 (2010)
So, amateur trouble maker that I am, I tried to fix it--changing only the typography and none of the words of the text. I also contacted Matthew Butterick, author of the new book Typography for Lawyers and the website by the same name.
Each of us independently took a swing at changing the typography to make the opinion more readable, more authoritative, and (I think) more aesthetically pleasing. The next two posts will be the big reveal on what we did and why.
But before that, you have a chance to weigh in. What would you do to change the way the opinion looks? What would make the opinion more readable and the Court's message more clear?
Welcome to the Appellate Record-- --the online community and virtual watering hole for appellate lawyers and anyone else who is comfortable with their inner law nerd.
Kendall,
I could not tell from your post, but I think if you and Matthew are applying typographic rules to judicial opinions as you might find them in bound volumes, then your exercise is fun, but not relevant to the modern lawyer. Not many lawyers download the court's pdfs when the orders are issued, and even fewer these days subscribe to advanced sheets and bound volumes. Yes, many lawyers have the option to print cases as they would appear in a bound volume, but at $5 or more per opinion (whether as a standalone or quickview charge), there is a financial disincentive to do so. And Lexis, Loislaw, Fastcase, etc. don't offer this option.
IMO, applying the rules to anything less than what a lawyer could read on screen simply won't be helpful. If you were tackling the briefing in the case, that actually would be helpful.
But if you are planning on applying Matthew's excellent advice to opinions in browsers, then I would love to weigh in.
There are a couple of applications here. First, there are a large number of appellate geeks and other lawyers who actually do download the advance sheets every time they come out. And even if there were not, the Court ought to speak as authoritatively and as clearly as possible whenever it speaks. Typography matters.
Second, changing the typography does not just apply to the court's opinions. The types of changes we will be making to the opinion are in many ways the same types of changes that ought to be made to briefing under current rules AND counsel in favor of changing the rules away from typewriter defaults to make briefs more readable.
If you go back over the Nerdlaw posts and compare those with the final product in the next two posts, you will see what I mean.
Put all those citations in footnotes, and as far as I'm concerned left-justify everything on the planet. Fully-justified text is harder to read, and the spacing between letters always seems awkward.
But I guess that's the low-hanging fruit. What else do you suggest?
You're thinking a lot of the same things I am, although I continue to like fully justified text even though I know I'm not supposed to.
You'll see the final product in the big reveal, but I also changed the font, the font size, the line length and the line spacing for improved readability and (I hope) a more authoritative look.
Those two pages you included have led me away from ever wanting to become a lawyer. I look forward to your project's Big Reveal!
Those sound like great ideas. Frankly, I like two columns on each page, too, which makes for faster scanning. Opinions are reference tools first and foremost, and by making opinions easier to read and scan we are ultimately saving money for our clients.
May I commend the works of Edward Tufte (Emeritus Professor at Yale), who has written several books on how to present information effectively.
A significant improvement would be to eliminate footnotes. These are distracting because, after reading one, the reader has to search back for the reference. Instead, Tufte uses sidenotes in a wider than usual margin. As they are level with their references they act as pointers to those references.
If the citations were also moved into the margin, the text would be more readable.
Relax the justification - in particular, don't allow spacing within words, even if this results in a ragged edge. Reduce the line spacing from 2 to (say) 1.2.
I would be inclined to choose a different font, but I don't think this is as important as the suggestions above.
Mark, thanks for your comment. That is a new resource for me that I will certainly enjoy reading.
My changes do monkey with the margins, line lengths and font. And I bet if we were starting from scratch with no preconceived ideas, placing citations in the margins would be objectively easy and effective. But I wonder whether it would violate too many preconceived expectations arising out of our history of using footnotes and text to make such a big alteration at this point.