1

The KOMA-Script guide states the following on page 26:

The literature gives different values for good line lengths, depending on the author. To some extent, this is related to the native language of the author. Since the eye jumps from word to word, short words make this task easier. Considering all languages and fonts, a line length of 60 to 70 characters, including spaces and punctuation, forms a usable compromise. This requires well-chosen leading, but LaTeX's default is usually good enough. Longer line lengths should only be considered for highly-developed readers who spend several hours daily reading. However, even for such readers, line lengths greater than 80 characters are unsuitable.

Yet, the KOMA-Script guide has a line length of > 100 characters. Why is that? Are there exceptions to these rules that apply here?

Similarly, the guide states the following on page 24, which is apparently also violated by the KOMA-Script guide:

In a single-sided document, the left and the right margin should have equal widths. The relation of the upper margin to the lower margin should be 1:2. In a double-sided document (e. g. a book) however, the complete inner margin (the margin at the spine) should be the same as each of the two outer margins; in other words, a single page contributes only half of the inner margin.

Are there any special reasons for the differences between the claims being made and the actual layout being used in the same document?

An answer I found here indicates that the layout of the book is sound while the online version deviates and, further, that "margins have been cut to allow more legible text on the typical computer screen. You can look upon this as a service for the user or as one of the restrictions of the free version compared to the book." Yet, why would longer lines be legible on a computer screen if the following statement from the KOMA-Script guide is true (as mentioned above): "Longer line lengths should only be considered for highly-developed readers who spend several hours daily reading. However, even for such readers, line lengths greater than 80 characters are unsuitable."

closed as off-topic by Keks Dose, user36296, Svend Tveskæg, Romain Picot, Arun Debray Jan 29 '16 at 14:49

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "This question does not fall within the scope of TeX, LaTeX or related typesetting systems as defined in the help center." – user36296, Svend Tveskæg, Romain Picot, Arun Debray
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • Why aren't you using the author? – Johannes_B Dec 4 '15 at 10:15
  • On my screen, the max line length in your question is about 90 chars wide, resulting in huge left and right margins. People tend to fit the pdf to fit the screen width, which would result in really big letters. So, it is a compromise i would say. – Johannes_B Dec 4 '15 at 10:17
  • On your first comment: why isn't everybody else contacting authors directly and rather posting questions on stackexchange instead? I mean this is the whole purpose of a Q&A website. On your second comment: that's right but nobody said the question layout on stackexchange was sound in the first place. Most web designers do not have line widths longer than 60-70 characters, and that's for a good reason. – Philip Leifeld Dec 4 '15 at 10:26
  • 2
    The thing is, the author seems to contradict himself. People noticed that. The author himself has explained why he did things, you yourself quoted the englisch translation. You still ask. In my point of view, that question is opinion based, the only right answer could only be given by Markus himself. – Johannes_B Dec 4 '15 at 10:53
  • "to allow more legible text on the typical computer screen." should probably mean "more text that can be seen on screen". – Johannes_B Dec 4 '15 at 10:55

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.