A quick lurker's note: those interested in all things metric (metricniks? metricheads?) should absolutely read "The Measure of All Things : The Seven-Year Odyssey and Hidden Error That Transformed the World" by Ken Alder. It's an astonishing book.

What's your summary of that title? Does it campaign for metrics or against it?

As a designer in Canada, I try to stay away from the metric system at all costs. For most print items I'll design in picas (and points) though inches sometimes creeps in. For screen based work, I'll use pixels as the measurement the majority of the time. I find the metric system to be awkward for dividing the page up.

I would prefer the metric system but working in the US, i converted to inches. For times when i'm lost between the different systems, there is a cool utility that offers conversion, plus some other helpful stuff: Art Director's Toolkit

Just the other day, my mother-in-law asked me (I forget why) "How many yards in a mile?" I hate to seem stupid in front of my mother-in-law, so I started to try to work it out in my mind: Let's see, there's something like 5,000-something feet in a mile, there are three feet in a yard, that means that it would be like, uh...1,700 or so yards...? (Not bad: the actual answer is 1,760.)

Someone once told me that this kind of calculation was like trying to make change at a cash register in a world where 12 pennies equaled a dime, 8 dimes made a dollar, and 16 dollars made...well, you can do the rest. (Ask anyone who grew up in England under their non-metric currency system: you get used to anything.)

Anyways, I'm an enthusiast for the logic of the metric system although I still think in inches and feet (and occasionally picas and points). On the other hand, I find the Celsius temperature system completely stupid and arbritrary. You don't have to add or substract or multiply temperatures, people, so what's the point?

As a born and bred Canadian, I've noticed that most Canadians mix-and-match their units. Whether or not you use metric or imperial measurements tends to depend on what you're talking about.

People measure in feet and inches, measure their own weight in pounds (but produce in kilograms), calculate distances in miles (but wind speed in kilometres per hour), and use Celsius instead of Fahrenheit when speaking of temperatures.

From what I can tell, this tends to hold true no matter the age of the person - when I was teaching, I noticed this even with my youngest students who were right out of high school.

A fantastic ode to metrics by Atom and His Package: (Lord, It's Hard to be Happy When You're Not) Using the Metric System*

*an mp3 link

You hate celsius, Michael? I've always hated the fact that freezing is 32. It's like saying the main floor of a building is 15.

But as for switching to everything metric, I would love to. I'm sure it would have its quirks, but nothing compared to what we've got now.

On the other hand, I find the Celsius temperature system completely stupid and arbritrary.

while i got used to inches compared to centimeters etc. i just don't see the point in fahrenheit. celsius makes more sense to me. water freezes at 0. everything below freezing is minus, all above is plus.

You don't have to add or substract or multiply temperatures, people, so what's the point?

0 degrees is the freezing point. 100 degrees is the boiling point.

Ditto everything Michael S. and Neil said.

I join my fellow Canadians to say

I measure type in points

margins in picas

page sizes in inches

my height in feet and inches

all building materials in feet / inches

all distances in kilometres

(but

in order to understand my fuel efficiency, i have to convert

L/km to mpg)

dry weight in pounds or kilos

volume in litres

atmospheric temperature in Celcius

oven temperature in Farenheit

baking measurements in cups, teaspoons, etc.

Fabric in metres

...

I've always considered measuring design in centimetres to be idiotic ... but what do the Europeans do? They shd know ...

There's an episode of Star Trek where they use inches and pounds I think - it always made me wonder what system was used in the USA and I couldn't figure out how a nation so technologically advanced could still be counting things in 12s and 14s.

We're all screwed up here in the UK, mind. I was born just as the currency was converted to metric so managed to miss out on that (though was still taught it by one teacher for some reason - history I suppose. 12 pence in a shilling, 12 shillings in a pound, 144 pence in a pound, half a shilling was a tanner etc etc - confusing enough but it was abbreviated LSD for pounds, shillings and pence. There are still people who go on and on about the good old days...)

We were taught both metric and imperial for short distances, but always used miles for journeys (still do - my flat is measured in metres, the distance to work in miles) and until I recently joined a gym and had to convert to kilos and metres for the machines, I always measured my weight in stones and pounds and my height in feet and inches!

We moved over to kilos for all foods etc a couple of years ago and shop keepers can be prosecuted for using Imperial measurements - there are a few court cases every now and then as die-hards try to 'keep it British'... sigh.

But for me temperature has always been Centigrade (as we used to call it - now Celsius) tho' I can still convert to Farenheit in my head because people a bit older than me still use it: 82 degrees is considered a significant temperature to many, but 28 degrees celsius sounds low to them.

But I agree with the previous poster that the Celsius system makes far more sense than Farenheit.

As for design work, I've always used centimetres for print and can work out an A size in my head no problem - but I don't know the imperial equivelants.

However I have never, ever used or met anyone who used points, picas or ems here in the UK...

I worked on a museum project in Australia a few years ago and had to get used to working in the metric system. I was surprised at the time to find that everyone was speaking in millimeters (makes sense now) instead of meters no mater the size of the distance in question. After a while I got calibrated and comfortable talking about railings being "n mil" of the ground. I really missed it after returning to the US. I stubbornly continued for a while, but it was not reasonable in a collaborative environment.

I came across this bit about Metric Typographic Units a ways back. Maybe you'll find it interesting.

I may start a layout in inches or millimeters, just to make sure I get the basic measurements right, but generally I like to design using piacs and points. I like playing with numeric relationships between sizes and spaces. It gives a sense of stability, rhythm, and proportion to elements, which can be obvious but frequently is subtle. By using a pica measurements, I'm more involved with these relationships, e.g. understanding a letter-sized sheet being 51x66 units versus 8.5x11 units. Numerically, having a base-12 system, opens more possibilities by being able to more easily subdivide between 2, 3, 4, etc. Working with inches is frequently spent by splitting fractions. Inches are fine for building a house, but clumsy when put to the task of designing a page. Millimeters are okay, but being base-10, they don't offer the same numeric opportunities as a twelve system: they tend to reinforce base-10 systems, for me anyway. Also, while I think the european system for sheet-sizing is smart, I always wonder why it wasn't tweaked a bit to work numerically better with millimeters, e.g. A4 being 210x297 mm. Couldn't that be slightly shifted to 200x300, or even 210x300?

Admittedly, I'm probably also guilty of being a bit of an old-school snob in that picas are units of typography. I want to work within a proper measurement system that acknowledges the past and unifies all the elements on the page. This just helps with overall design cohesion, IMHO.

I also really like working with picas/points because 72 picas per inch = 72 pixels per inch. So creating things in Illustrator/FreeHand using picas/points translates very well when exported into Photoshop or Flash. A one point rule is a one pixel rule. When you're striving for crisp on-screen artwork, the less arbitrary anti-aliasing the better.

In the debate betwen Celsius versus Farenheit, I'm inclined to favor the latter. Celsius is fine for use in scientific endeavors, but is limited when put in the human context. I mean seriously, when is a human being going to experience the heat of boiling water and live to tell about it? Ya might as well be using Kelvins, at that point. A couple of degree points difference in Celsius is a much bigger shift in Farenheit. So for me, Farenheit is more descriptive.

Whether C or F, it looks like designers are hot on using all kinds of units. This doesn't surprise me. Most designers I know love numbers, grids, and the finer details. So if you jump from meters to inches and backwards and sideways and forwards, do you have any tricks (besides cute little programs) to help with the conversions?

I'm usually not one to defend what my high school physics teacher called “the silly system.” Quite the opposite: Almost thirty years ago I bought a scale and, convinced that the end of pounds was not just inevitable but imminent, paid extra for one where you flip can flip the balance bar to weigh yourself in kilos. (This amused my mathematician sister who can multiply or divide by 2.2 without a millisecond’s hesitation so didn't see why anyone would pay another fifteen bucks in 197x dollars for the convenience of not ever having to think in the future.)

All these years later I still weigh myself in pounds (and can multiply or divide by 2.2 with a millisecond’s hesitation.) Since I don’t worry about how many ounces I weigh and rarely wonder how many of me would fit in a long ton, who cares what the units are? Does it sound more impressive that I’ve lost about eighteen pounds in the last five weeks than that I’m under ninety kilos for the first time in fifteen years?

For design I use whatever makes sense. That’s often inches because I’m designing things to fit on a US paper sheet but I use whatever measure comes out even so it’s easy to keep my grid in my head. I used to hate the rounded-off-to-1/72" points but they are quite convenient for pixels on a Mac.

Fahrenheit is harder to convert to Kelvin so if you’re worried about absolute zero it’s better but most of us use temperature for cooking and weather so now my betrayal of Mr. McKean, about the best teacher of anything that I’ve ever had: If it’s in the 90s it’s too damned hot. If it’s in the 80s you want to put on shorts. If it’s in the 70s you’re going to be comfortable. If it’s in the 60s you should bring a sweat shirt. If it’s in the fifties you probably want to think about long pants and a jacket. . . Celsius just isn’t as humane. Maybe C makes more sense when it gets colder. It seems a little easier for ski wax. At ten below zero F you need to close the lid on the barbecue or the steak will get cold on top before it cooks on the bottom. At thirty below, even I don’t barbecue.

People who get poetic about sports seem to think that running a mile is a more poetic distance than 15000 meters. I guess the mile has the advantage of not having to argue whether that’s 15,000 or 15.000. I don’t much care. I measure me in feet and my bicycle in centimeters.

Marian—Is that miles per Imperial gallon?

Re: What's your summary of that title? Does it campaign for metrics or against it?

I just read the reviews on the Amazon page, and they summarize the book pretty good. It doesn't really campaign for or against; the book mainly shows the ideological, political and (most of all) human dimensions of the metric system. It shows the meter as a monument to enlightment, reason - and human shortcoming. It's quite touching, actually.

As for graphic design and the metric system: here in Europe we use A formats (A0, A1, A2, A3 etc.) and that's purely metric, as A0 measures exactly one square meter.

First of all, type is measured in points and picas. It's the standard system of measurement for typography that dictates the syntax for tools and application for typography — not to mention the proper grid for designing a typeface.

But let's look at this mathematically.

Points and picas is a base-12 system (12 points per pica, 72 points per 1 inch conversion), while metrics is a base-10, and the english system is mostly a base-2 (16 divisions to an inch, 4 pints to a quart x 4 to a gallon, etc.) Among all of those systems, only the points and picas system is divisible by 3. What this means is that it's more precise because it can avoid continued fractions (1/3 = 0.333333..or 2/3 = 0.66666..) and give whole numbers or finite fractions. Not even the metrics system can handle something as simple and common as 1/3rds.

For example, suppose you need to fold a letter (8.5"x11") into thirds. What would be the exact size of each panel? In inches, it's 8.5"x3.6666"... In metrics, it would be 215.9mm x 93.1333...mm. And in points and picas, it's 51p x 22p. Which is easiest? (Granted, European A4 size letter measures 210mm x 297mm, which is wholely divisible by 3 — but it's a rare exception. Most metric standard sizes aren't.)

Sorry to be nerdy, but there's a mathematical beauty to points and picas that most people don't understand or appreciate, unless they've had to. Every agency I've ever work in uses points and picas in production. Every editorial and book publishing agency I know does the same. My office creates packaging templates for Microsoft that's localized to print in more than 125 countries around the world — and guess what? Yep, it's all in points and picas.

I've never known anyone who've become fluent in points and picas to go back to inches or metrics.

Now, as to Celcius vs Fahrenheit. I've always preferred �F because it had more increments. The difference between 72�F and 80�F sounds more discernable than 22�C — 26�C. And as to 0�C being freezing and 100�C— keep in mind that it's only freezing and boiling for water. Chemically-speaking, that's just 1 compound in a universe of trillions. Truth be told, both scales were based on arbitrarily chosen compound zero points. Even the Kelvin scale, which is most preferred by scientists, is based on the theoretical absolute zero in the universe.

Oops...just read Steven's post, which I basically repeated verbatim. Sorry Steven...I concur.

As for graphic design and the metric system: here in Europe we use A formats (A0, A1, A2, A3 etc.) and that's purely metric, as A0 measures exactly one square meter.

No it doesn't.

A0 measures 1,189mm x 841mm

I live in a 100% metric - centigrade country and only use picas and points because I like type, because of it’s ability to divide units within 2, 3 and 4 which is a great aid in design work and because we use letter and legal (US sized) papers.

But it’s a crazyness to measure everything else in units which don’t relate to each other or to anything at all. Anyway I get mad when I listen other designers talking about type measurements in milimeters.

I would like to work with the ISO paper series but they are practically unknown here. It’s impossible to buy an A4 paper stock.

However I have never, ever used or met anyone who used points, picas or ems here in the UK...

This astounds me. I honestly thought that points and picas were just ... well, professionally standard for typography around the ... well, sort-of-world ... exluding other writing systems.

Marian—Is that miles per Imperial gallon?

Umm... I think so, but I'm not sure. I'd forgotten there was a difference between Imperial and US gallons. Hmmm. Actually, maybe it's US, because I use an online converter.

Thankfully, my need to do this is very rare.

Tan I have to commend you on the extra effort you've taken with your HTML typography there.

I find it incredibly annoying when I have to work in inches.

The biggest problem is that the inch is just too big. Using fractions means that you have to be constantly dividing and multiplying.

Using millimeters avoids having to do anything but the simplest adding and subtracting.

Instead of using a quite large unit which needs to be chopped up into halves, quarters and thirds, it's much easier to just use lots of very little units.

It's rare that you ever need to measure something smaller than a tenth of a millimeter.

Also, because computers use decimal numbers, inputting imperial values with fractions means converting these to decimal - more sums!

I agree that pica sizes are much more precise and elegant, but millimeters are just easier.

Here in the UK, we've all got used to thinking in decimals. Fractions are too much like hard work.

Regarding weight, I wish everyone would hurry up and switch to kilos - they're much easier. At the moment we use grams/kilos for food in shops (but pounds/ounces for food in recipies); we use stones for weighing people (I don't even know what a stone is - just that I weigh 11 and a half of them); we use tonnes (or is that tons) for really heavy things.

The metric system is great. Everything is divisible by ten so it works with our base-ten number system - and you can count on your fimgers if you get a bit confused.

-- A0 measures exactly one square meter.

- No it doesn't. A0 measures 1,189mm x 841mm

...or 1 square metre. (Not 1 metre square.)

-- However I have never, ever used or met anyone who used points, picas or ems here in the UK...

- This astounds me. I honestly thought that points and picas were just ... well, professionally standard for typography around the ... well, sort-of-world ... exluding other writing systems.

I'm in the UK and everyone I know uses mm for all measurements -- but type size and line height in points. Same for Asia and Europe, US colleagues inches and points.

The book that the "re:krul/lurker" mentions, "The Measure of All Things" is a valuable read in understanding the metric system. The system was developed by the French during the revolution and was arguably the first step in creating global standards. What is surprising is the degree of resistance from the US to adopt the system more than two hundred years later. Maybe it's just because it's a french system, or just european in general?

As far as points being a division of the inch into twelve units, that's just as arbitrary as anything could be. It's just a familiar standard. While I love the numeric harmony that can be achieved by applying the ratios of twelve, the same harmonic geometry is just as possible with metrics. It's just not as familiar.

To the point that type is mostly measured around the world in points, I contend that most of the younger graphic designers don't even know what a point is other than a base reference. If the software developers used millimeters as the default measurement, millimeters would become the worldwide standard of measure for type within five years — probably more like two years.

I'm actually very surprised that some much of the progressive crowd that hangs around SpeakUp is thinking so retrogressively on this issue.

Here in Germany, everything in daily life seems to be measured with the metric system. But most designers use the point system for typefaces. I suspect that some use points & picas for print work as well, but I don't know any.

And, there is of course the pixel…

>If the software developers used millimeters as the default measurement, millimeters would become the worldwide standard of measure for type within five years — probably more like two years.

Thank heavens that they didn't do that! One thing about software development history that I really enjoy. Of course, the Europeans had other methods of judging type sizes, too, which are now gone (in large part I suspect because they don't make any sense with software interface).

>I'm actually very surprised that some much of the progressive crowd that hangs around SpeakUp is thinking so retrogressively on this issue.

Well, I am not. This thread has made me glad for two reasons. First, living in Europe now, I miss feet and inches like the Dickens! Second, it is reassuring to hear that designers seem nowhere near adopting the metric system for measuring type. That would be tragic…

Tom B: as Elliot already pointed out, the A0 format (1,189mm x 841mm) does equal one square meter... that's common knowledge. Which brings me to another point that I like about the metric system: the way a lot of other measurements and formats are derived from the meter: liters, grams etc. (I kinda like this idea of an universe where everything is related: weight, distance, speed, etc.)

I also very much like the system of prepositions: milli-, centi-, kilo-, etc.

A measurement system based on tenths and hundredths feels quite natural to me, as our earliest counting system (our "digits"/ fingers) is based on tenths.

Here in the Netherlands, all graphic design formats are measured in millimeters. Only typography is measured in points. But that's type only; I never met anyone who measured a piece of paper in points, pica's or inches.

...I concur.

Hey Tan, glad to see we're simpatico. Picas Rule!

it is reassuring to hear that designers seem nowhere near adopting the metric system for measuring type. That would be tragic…

I so agree with that sentiment. I consider myself to be pretty damn progressive in so many ways, but that doesn't mean that you have to forget about the past. Typography measured in millimeters is just Wrong!

That's not to say that there's anything intrinsically wrong with the metric system, and I quite prefer using it over the awkwardness of inches. And lord knows I've worked with more than my fair share of packaging dielines based in millimeters.

But why does everything have to be forced into one measurement system? What's wrong with designing a page using a numeric system that's based on typography? Seems pretty natural and appropriate to me.

When necessary to avoid making an inadvertant mistake, I will use inches or millimeters to get basic sizes down. But after that's done, it's much more facile to work in picas and points. And there's nothing wrong with bouncing back and forth between measurement systems, for that matter.

But well, dammit... At the risk of seeming a bit, well... elitist, or stuffy... but actually just valuing the history and craft of typography and the organizational systems incorporated therein; for me, someone who works with picas and points is more knowledgable about the subtleties and sensitivities of design (and therefore a better designer) than someone who works in a "one measurement fits all" methodology. For instance, it just seems utterly bizarre to measure type sizes in inches or millimeters, or pixels even. What are you measuring? The cap height in pixels? (If you don't understand why that's wrong, you need to know more about typography.)

To the point that type is mostly measured around the world in points, I contend that most of the younger graphic designers don't even know what a point is other than a base reference.

Well this is certainly sad, if true. I mean the computer is a wonderfully powerful and useful tool, but design history and knowledge predates its creation. Are we just supposed to turn our back to everything before 1986? Frankly, if you don't understand what a point is, you probably don't understand typography very well.

If the software developers used millimeters as the default measurement, millimeters would become the worldwide standard of measure for type within five years — probably more like two years.

As someone who's worked in the software industry for many, many years, let me tell ya, it's a good thing that the software industry doesn't affect our various cultures any more than it already does. Reinforcing ignorance through narrow-minded unilateralism is not a good thing. Besides, "user-centered" software development would never allow this situation to occur. Why would a developer ever want to alienate large segments of a customer base.

And finally, just from reading all of the various ways in which we all seem to measure even similar things, it seems pretty unlikely that a universally accepted and adopted measurement system is going to happen anytime soon. So I say, embrace knowledge and diversity!

>I contend that most of the younger graphic designers don't even know what a point is other than a base reference. If the software developers used millimeters as the default measurement..

Don't depend on software to teach you how to design, or be an excuse to attack things you aren't familiar with. There's nothing "progressive" about that.

Every design class I've ever taught begins with a sermon on adopting points and picas. Like I said, every legit agency that I know of that work on annual reports, packaging, or complex print projects, work in points and picas. Period. Any student that's fluent in picas is one step ahead of the game — and has a better chance of getting hired. It's even more important than his or her knowledge of any particular software program or html.

I'm not saying that you can't mix picas with metrics, but let's be clear on why one system is more appropriate than another. And don't be so quick to discount the knowledge of more experienced designers as antiquated thinking — it can only benefit you as a young designer to listen.

>let's be clear on why one system is more appropriate than another.

Well guys, you've got to help me with this one because I'm completely missing it — missing the point that is. (Sorry, I couldn't resist an obvious pun, no matter how bad.) I understand the importance of a point/pica system with metal type. Actually any standard would've worked. But with the scalability of digital type, the unit of measure doesn't matter. Does it?

Why does 72 points per inch translate to better typography than 28.5 points per centimeter? My eyes, and my audiences' eyes, see them as the same. No?

Why does 72 points per inch translate to better typography than 28.5 points per centimeter? My eyes, and my audiences' eyes, see them as the same.

Well, the truth is that both of those situations could lead to good typography because you're using points/picas in both. Frequently, I've worked on layouts that bounce between all three systems. But for me, it's really about numerical relationships. A system that works as six units of twelves, just opens up all sorts of possibilities that are only more awkwardly achieved in a base-10 system: e.g. 12 divides more cleanly into units of 3, 4, 6 etc.

Actually any standard would've worked. But with the scalability of digital type, the unit of measure doesn't matter. Does it?

BlueStreak, if you want to only understand typography from a strictly contemporary digital perspective, in isolation from the hundreds (and even thousands) of years of human experience, well then maybe understanding picas don't matter. But if want to have any depth of understanding of design beyond what currently looks hip, you should have at least a basic understanding and ability to work in picas and points. If for nothing else, it's part of the craft of practicing our trade, a part of understanding our past. For me, it's the difference between an amateur and a professional, as potentially arrogant as they may sound. But I mean, come on, it's not that hard a thing to learn. Why exclude yourself from other ways of working, when it could give you greater insight. And if you want to have a deep understanding of the proportional relationships within typography, you need to understand the measurement system that was used to create it. Typography had a rich history long before the computer ever came along.

From a progressive standpoint, consider this, breaking the rules means more when you know what rules you're breaking.

>you've got to help me with this one

*Sigh*...where should I start?

First, forget about the metal type and lead for a moment. This isn't about history and an archaic system of measurement. There's nothing archaic about it — in fact, it's even more relevant in today's digital world.

When you use type, do you understand that 9 point Helvetica refers to a Helvetica letter that physically measures 9 units of 'points' that the typeface occupies? Same for leading — 12 points leading refers to exactly 12 units of points, or 1 pica, between the upper and lower baseline of two lines of type. The x and y proportions and relations between characters of type aren't just arbitrary numbers — they are exact units of measurements. These units are called points, 12 of which equals a unit called a pica.

Now, imagine a page (poster, postcard, whatever) that has a grid measured out in points and picas. Suppose you needed to set some text, with a 3p outside margin, 4p6 inside margin, 6p top and bottom, 4 column, with 1p gutters. Using points an picas and a little math, you could calculate exactly how many lines of type would fit with 9 point type on 14 leading, or 8 points over 12, or any other combination of limitless complexities. How? Easy - 12 points in a pica x the width and height of the page. The rest is a matter of simple math.

My point is that type is created and measured by points and picas as the standard unit of measurement. Designing with type using points and picas takes advantage of the proportional relationship of elements created to work within that unit in the first place.

Until you've had to set type on a precise level that requires precision, fit, etc. — it's hard to appreciate the beauty of this proportional relationship. And it's not just type — take a drawn line. What do you think a 1 point rule refers to? It means the line is exactly 1 point thick. A "hairline" rule is exactly 0.15 points thick (which you should never use — 0.25 is the safe minimum).

And conversion is sort of irrelevant. I tell my students to forget how many points and pica equals an inch or cm, etc. Just learn to understand how big a pica is, and get used to designing and seeing elements within that system of measurement. Converting back to inches or cm for page size or die-line size is necessary — but after a while, even seasoned pros find that unnecessary.

Book and editorial designers are insanely exacting with their points and picas. Many have tricks for relationships with H&Js, copy count, kerning tables, etc. All related back to points and picas. And if you don't know what some of these things mean or matter, then that's even more problematic.

What more can I say? Steven has already given his take. I'll stop and let some others here explain better... Marian?

Steven said : A4 being 210x297 mm. Couldn't that be slightly shifted to 200x300, or even 210x300?

No, it couldn't :) As someone else said, A0 has a surface of 1 square meter. But wait, there's more about it! The proportions have been calculated so that when you divide any A format, you get exactly the next A size : cut an A3 (42 x 29.7 cm) in two equals parts, and you get two A4 (21 x 29.7, which is our "standard letter" size). Cut it again, you get two A5, and all of them have exactly the same proportions.

Height = width x 1,414 (which is the square root of 2)

Re: someone who works with picas and points is more knowledgable about the subtleties and sensitivities of design (and therefore a better designer) than someone who works in a "one measurement fits all" methodology.

Picas and points are also remainders of a "one measurement fits all" methodology. The whole point system (how I understand it) is based on a system devised by Sebastian Truchet (c. 1700) that is based on the "ligne", the then-official pre-metrics "one measurement fits all" measurement unit in France. This whole system might as well have been based on the meter instead of the "ligne".

Re: And don't be so quick to discount the knowledge of more experienced designers as antiquated thinking — it can only benefit you as a young designer to listen.

It's tacky to make this into a "young designers" vs. "old designers" argument. This makes the whole discussion useless. You don't know my age, I don't know yours, and let's keep it that way.

>Height = width x 1,414 (which is the square root of 2)

…which is the golden section, a proportional relationship that is evident throughout nature (including our bodies), and which has been both consciously & unconsciously used by artists and designers for millenia.

This is the beauty of the ISO paper formats. It is interesting to note that some of the biggest proponents of adapting these paper sizes were the Modernists (the real Modernists, with a capital "M"… those that were running amok in central Europe during the 1920s).

why isn't there a base-12 unit that fits with the current metric system?

we could divide a centimeter into twelve and use this as the basis for certain measurements.

then we could have all the elegance of a base-12 system that would work with metric paper sizes, and conversion would be simple.

Of course, this wouldn't have any correspondance to the existing pica/point system, but it would make more sense for us in Europe.

…which is the golden section

Nope, it's the golden rectangle. The golden number is (1 + sq root of 5) / 2 = 1.618 approximately.

why isn't there a base-12 unit that fits with the current metric system?

I think metric system isn't a matter of units, but specifically a matter of base-10. 1.4 meter = 140 centimeters = 1400 millimeters... Just add or remove zeros. How do you convert 1.4 meters in centimeters in base 12? :) It just doesn't make sense.

We all use base 12 everyday (for hours, rotations...), and nobody would pretend it's easier.

I wasn't suggesting that we should change the metric system to base-12, that wouldn't work.

I just thought that we could invent a new unit - a twelth of a centimeter. Lets call it (for want of a better name) the 'twelvetimeter'.

1.4 meters would therefore be 140cm x 12 = 1680 twelvetimeters

I know this is like trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. But so is the current system.

the metric system will never accommodate a base-12 unit properly. But surely it would be better, in countries where the metric system is used, to have a base-12 unit that is synchronised with the centimeter than one that is synchronised with the inch.

Or maybe we should forget about metrics, and learn to use picas all the time

>You don't know my age, I don't know yours, and let's keep it that way.

actually old man, I was addressing BlueStreak, who I happen to know is a recent graduate.

But I take it from your misplaced defensiveness, that you probably are too.

A Relevant Link: www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/metric-typo

If it weren't for the US dominating the software market, and hardware design too, the point/pica system wouldn't even be considered any more. Why else is resolution measured in pixels per inch in a metric world?

"BlueStreak, if you want to only understand typography from a strictly contemporary digital perspective, in isolation from the hundreds (and even thousands) of years of human experience, well then maybe understanding picas don't matter."

Maybe that's my problem. I do understand type from a contemporary digital perspective because I'm designing in the year 2005. Stop assuming that some of us don't know what we're talking about because we've dropped an archaic standard. (Yes Tan, you're myopic and it is archaic.) I've spec'd type in points and picas, but gave it up with color key proofs.

Would you guys use points to layout a 1220mm x 2440mm exhibit panel and design it as if it were a page of print? There's much more to design than graphic design and page layout/print. The proportional relationships of type exist outside of the unit of measure, and there's more than one way to measure type. Use points all you want. I'm moving on.

"I was addressing BlueStreak, who I happen to know is a recent graduate."

Recent is definitely a relative term.

Hey, Bluestreak — have fun moving on. It's just advice from some myopic old farts who probably don't know what they're talking about. I don't even know why I bothered.

I honestly thought that points and picas were just ... well, professionally standard for typography around the ... well, sort-of-world

In addition to not being currently true, it’s not historically true. Several different point measures existed.

I'd forgotten there was a difference between Imperial and US gallons.

Either 25% more or maybe gas cost more and cars got much better mileage in Canada.

What is surprising is the degree of resistance from the US to adopt the system more than two hundred years later. Maybe it's just because it's a french system, or just european in general?

The last time there was significant political pressure for a change was in the late ’60s and the ’70s. At the time, the industrial base and the military were heavily invested in SAE and feared the cost of changing parts and tooling. Now the military is mainly metric as are most high tech industries and the American car companies (yeah, there are a couple still left) sell as many unAmerican cars as they do domestic ones.

At this point there’s not any big reason to worry about what’s “standard.” More US products are made with metric bolts, mechanics own metric wrenches, but most of all, conversion between units is no problem since everything is computerized. Okay, there was that one problem with the Mars Climate Orbiter and Lockhead Martin and JPL using different units but what’s a lost space probe in the larger scheme?

I contend that most of the younger graphic designers don't even know what a point is other than a base reference.

What is any unit other than a base reference? The points they know are, of course, not the same points that we used to know.

designing a page using a numeric system that's based on typography? Seems pretty natural and appropriate to me. . . For instance, it just seems utterly bizarre to measure type sizes in inches or millimeters, or pixels even.

and

What are you measuring? The cap height in pixels? (If you don't understand why that's wrong, you need to know more about typography.). . . Frankly, if you don't understand what a point is, you probably don't understand typography very well.

There is no natural connection between type and any unit of measure. It is all arbitrary social convention. There were several such social conventions, pica points being just one of them so there wasn’t ever just one social convention anyway.

understand typography from a strictly contemporary digital perspective, in isolation from the hundreds (and even thousands) of years of human experience, well then maybe understanding picas don't matter.

Understanding picas stretches you back a few hundred years at best. Hell, understanding typography only gets you back a few hundred years. It is well worth understanding something of pre-typographic letterforms but that ain’t typography any more than a telescope is a camera.

When you use type, do you understand that 9 point Helvetica refers to a Helvetica letter that physically measures 9 units of 'points' that the typeface occupies?

Of course the letter does not occupy nine points. It is placed on nine points space. The only thing that occupies nine points is the slug of lead that would carry the type if it were on a lead slug instead of in the form of a digital file representing a collection of curve descriptions (which, of course, it is not.)

Gunnar, "occupy" does not mean "fill". How is "placed" any different? The bottom line is that 9 points for one typeface should be proportionally equivalent for another typeface. The buffer space w/i those 9 points is up to each individual type design — regardless of whether it's a lead slug or a vector shape.

>There is no natural connection between type and any unit of measure.

I'm absolutely fucking stunned that you've said this Gunnar. I'd thought of you differently.

I measure my layouts in Oreo cookies.

Seriously… setting layouts in points and picas is better than setting them in inches or milimeters? So a text box that measures 240 x 380 points and is positioned at 300 x 340 points off the upper-left corner of the page is better than a text box that measures 4.1667 x 4.7222 inches and is positioned at 3.3333 x 5.2778 inches off the upper-left corner of the page? (That of course is the exact same box in the exact same place switching measurement preferences in Quark). Na-ah. It seems like knowing where to put the box in the first place is being forgotten.

> for me, someone who works with picas and points is more knowledgable about the subtleties and sensitivities of design (and therefore a better designer)

Whoah, not even I would go for such a statement, and we all know that when it comes to elitism I can elitise with the best. Measuring designers by the measure they use to measure layouts seems immesurably arbitrary. A bad designer will do bad design even if he counted sheep in points and picas. And a good designer will do good design even if he measured the calories of Oreos in inches.

Is that regular or Double Stuff?

Tan—Is someone who likes a cicero rather than a pica some unnatural, oversized freak? People were doing typography before the goddamned pica was invented. The whole idea that you can choose the size of a particular typeface freely is a very recent invention. Unless you mean natural like you and I are used to it and we feel comfortable, then no, there’s nothing natural about picas.

BTW, did your world fall apart when points got bigger? Do you use real points or computer points?

And yes, it is important to remember that type is placed on a measure by the type designer. She made a choice. You do not have to act as if it were word of God. Changing tastes and technologies have affected how big a letter of a nominal size is. Two different typefaces often have to be two different sizes to seem the same and/or get leaded differently to be spaced the same. And it doesn’t make a damned bit of difference if that’s “leading” or “interline spacing” or if it’s 10/13 or 10 + 3.

Armin—Using QuarkXPress. Now that’s

Armin—Using QuarkXPress. Now that’s

I swear I ended that sentence. Never mind.

Let's be realistic. While one measurement system isn't any purer than other, designs tend to based around a grid of the unit the designer has chosen (in my case mm for page size, column width, etc and point size for type height and leading). Depending to a large extent on the size of the piece (you're likely to use 9pt or 10pt for a book's body text, but you could use 200pt, 300pt, or anywhere in between for a poster heading) there will be some influence on the result in terms of quantisation or gridding. Simple.

What's interesting in my personal experience (UK inhouse at a big multinational co) is that the point does have value as a lingua franca between the US and the rest of the world. While Im a rabid metricist, and would expect to adapt a US letter layout to A4 by changing the base measurement system from inches to mm, changing column width from 2" to 50mm, etc, I'd keep the 10/13pt body text. So although when I pass the design back my US colleague might find the page layout a little confusing, they'll have no problems fitting text.

Yes we could work solely in points for all measurements, including page sizes, but that would make it difficult to discuss with anyone else: printers, clients - even though they're used to specifying type size in points in in MS Word and Excel ... It's all about compromising between what you're used to and what others expect you to use.

Another related point: I find most designers from an academic print background, whatever their experience, have real trouble understanding measurement for on screen/web applications and get really hung up on point sizes for text and the old 72dpi chestnut...

adapt a US letter layout to A4 by changing the base measurement system from inches to mm, changing column width from 2" to 50mm, etc, I'd keep the 10/13pt body text.

Quite. I use whatever the hardware or software requires. As paper comes in metric sheets where i work (mainly Europe, although i write this in San Francisco), i measure page size, columns and margins in mm. I like to use proportions. i.e. 3:4 for pages sizes and related measurements, and it is much easier to divide metric numbers than fractions. The worst system must be decimal inches — a contradiction in terms. I specify type and leading in points, but not picas. As i always work with a baseline grid to accomodate different sizes (say 9pt text, 12 pt subs, 24 heads, etc), i need a common denominator, and that is easier with a base 12 system. If i use a 4pt grid, leadings of 12, 16, 28, etc (for the text sizes mentioned) all line up. And the baseline grid starts a certain amount of millimeters from the top.

Going from points to picas makes adding and subtracting difficult, so i only use points. Millimeters are too coarse for typographic subtleties, but good enough for paper sizes, columns and margins. I've never had any problems mixing these 2 systems in layouts. In fact, plumbers in Germany still use a duodecimal system, even though the actual measurements have been converted to metric. What used to be a 1 inch pipe is now a 25mm one. They use the German word for it: Zoll, and divide them into halves and quarters. It is much easier to picture (and say) 2 Halbzoll (i.e. half-inch) pipes meeting in a Y-junction to converge into an "Einzoll" pipe than having to go into decimals, like twice 12.5mm.

Whatever works best. Measurements as ideology is stupid, and most of our preferences are just habits, not convictions. What drives me crazy, though, is the fact that PostScript is based on 1000 units, so type design programmes use 1000 units to draw letters that will eventually have to be fitted into a duodecimal grid. Rounding errors cause noise which then has to be filtered out by anti-aliasing and hinting.

I'm surprised that people have gotten this riled up over measurement issues. Maybe some of this has been misinterpretted from my earlier rather seemingly dogmatic statements. To that extend, I offer an olive branch:

While I still contend that it's very important to know about and be able to work with picas/points, I have never stated that everything that I do is always in picas and points. I bounce around to whatever measurement system is most useful at the time. Frequently, most of my design time is spent working with typography within a grid system, so picas/points play a big part in how I design.

Gunnar--

Since you went after a number of my previous statements, I feel inclined to respond to you first. Let me first point out that some of what I said was overly general, because I'm trying (perhaps not yet sucessfully) to not post long responses, as unfortunately, they tend to be seen as dominating, which is not at all my intention, and never would be. Anyway, let me get to the specifics. (Sigh.)

There is no natural connection between type and any unit of measure. It is all arbitrary social convention. There were several such social conventions, pica points being just one of them so there wasn’t ever just one social convention anyway.

Well, from my early 80's American design education, a lot of dogmatic emphasis was put on the pica/point system. This system was the default, dominant system then and it still seems to have a fairly universal acceptance. And from my modest understanding of typography, pica/points system measurements and sensibilities were very much integrated into the understanding the design and use of type from the 19th and 20th century, which is the majority of the type we use today. So I think it's relevance continues.

Understanding picas stretches you back a few hundred years at best. Hell, understanding typography only gets you back a few hundred years. It is well worth understanding something of pre-typographic letterforms but that ain’t typography any more than a telescope is a camera.

I was refering to the continuing evolution of typography, and the importance of pica/point measurements, in my original statement. I know that the Greeks weren't using the pica system to chisel out their letterforms. The Medieval monks weren't using points to measure their manuscripts. But their sensitibilities and customs were continued and reinterpretted into a time when picas and points were used to evaluate type. A camera isn't a telescope, but you'd have a harder time understanding the former if you didn't have an understanding of the latter.

BTW, I was fine with rounding out the fraction of a point when the 72 points per inch was established though the computer. As I mentioned before, for me, it's all about numerical relationships, and that fraction would have just gotten in the way.

BlueStreak--

Even if the US didn't dominate the development of globally-used software, we'd still have the inclusion of picas within software because so many of us use picas and points on a daily basis. Also, almost all of the files that I have received over the years from UK designers came with their resolution measurements as X number of pixels per cm.

I do think it's curious, though, that while you profess to dropping the archaic standard of picas, you seem, as demonstrated by the fonts on your Web page, to have an affinity toward 19th century faces. Don't you find it useful to use picas and points when using or reinterpretting those typefaces?

And when I'm designing, say, a 5' x 20' tradeshow banner, I'm definitely not using picas and points, anymore than I'm using mm. Most likely it's inches or cm's that are the most useful. Like I said before, whatever works best in the given context.

Armin--

Measuring designers by the measure they use to measure layouts seems immesurably arbitrary. A bad designer will do bad design even if he counted sheep in points and picas. And a good designer will do good design even if he measured the calories of Oreos in inches.

When I made my original statement, I made the point of qualifying it by saying "for me" and I probably should have also included "in general" as well. Look, let me put it another way, you don't have to know how to read or write music in order to be a good musician; but if you want to be a masterful musician, you should know how. Similarly, you don't need to know the pica/point system to be a good designer. But if you want to be a masterful designer, you need to be familiar with the pica/point system and able to use it when needed. And from my experience, those that are familiar with the pica/point system and able to use it when needed generally are better designers than those that don't know and aren't able. Like I said before, it's not a hard thing to learn and the pica/point system has some real advantages when creating artwork for the standard 72 dpi computer screen.

My dogmatic table-pounding is more about people refusing to use one particular system over another, especially when that former system is still very prevalent and useful.

The worst system must be decimal inches — a contradiction in terms.

Back when I was designing printed circuit boards, that's what we used. Something to do with military standard tolerances. We had these slick little metal rulers graduated as such.

Some time later—when working with a commercial printer—we were looking for a ruler and I offered up one of these decimal inch jobbies, and he said, "Get that thing away from me."

Seeing Erik’s post reminded me of a publication Meta Design did with Gilbert Paper in 1996. As stated in the A6 pages, design is “an international language” that “trancends cultural differences.” No matter the unit or device, design is the glue that unites us. As designers, process drives us towards the concept. In the end, how important is the “how”?

Jason, "how" is just as important as "what." Design is both process and object; theory and artifact. As practitioners, we are constantly in recursive cycles between the two states.

But as Erik Spiekermann says "what ever works best." I just find it distressing to hear people closing themselves off from certain paths that could offer insight or efficiencies. I feel that we should be open and adaptive to all scenarios. But ultimately, people do have a right to their idiosyncrasies.

'Nuff said.

All this argument over measurements isn't about ideologies of design — it's about the preferred methodologies of typography, specifically.

On the one hand, I agree, that "how" we practice the art of typography isn't as important as the end result and manifestation of it in a design. But on the other hand, typography is also a discipline where learned tradition and methodologies play a big part of the craft itself. Just like playing a musical instrument — there's a right and wrong way to play, whether you choose to accept it or not. It's the same of any discipline.

All this argument over measurements isn't about ideologies of design — it's about the preferred methodologies of typography, specifically.

Really? I don't remember seeing that in my opening post. If you're suggesting that the comments build toward typographic measurement, I see your point.

But believing that there's a right and wrong way to play, measure, do, or say makes this a closed argument, Tan.

I should recap and clarify — all of the discussion over picas vs. metrics was more about methodologies, not ideology as erik had alluded to. Not meant to directly relate back to your intro.

Methodologies as it applies to a craft — in this case, typography, becomes a discipline. I contend that like most disciplines, there is a set of accepted knowledge and methods that gets passed on as training, a systematic method that's accepted and proven. And which I added, people can totally choose to ignore and lambast.

So we were discussing why some people prefer one set of methodologies over another, right? My view is that points and picas happens to be a core of typography. People have agreed and disagreed.

You then asked whether "how" was really important in design, yet your thread is all about a specific facet of the process of it. I responded specifically that yes, the methodologies of typography is important. Whether or not I 'closed' the argument — I'm not sure I did or care. So what is your point now Jason?

:'-(

Steven's earlier comment:

>"Typography measured in millimeters is just Wrong!"

Steven's recent comment:

>"I just find it distressing to hear people closing themselves off from certain paths that could offer insight or efficiencies. I feel that we should be open and adaptive to all scenarios."

Which is it Steven? 3.5mm/4.5mm type is indiscernible from 10pt/13pt without a microscope.

Tan's comment:

>"...typography is also a discipline where learned tradition and methodologies play a big part of the craft itself. Just like playing a musical instrument — there's a right and wrong way to play"

Yeah, and some whitey's still say Jazz and Blues aren't proper music either. Technology and culture change traditions and methodologies. Come on guy. Try metric type, it's fun and it's free.

excerpt from Jason's article:

>"...Do you wish we used the metric system stateside? Why or why not?"

I wish the US used metrics because...

• I want to get rid of the redundant stack of rulers on my drawing board.

• I'm not scared of a new world order.

• I dream of streamlined international trade.

• Converting measurements is a needless waste of energy.

• Producing two standards is wasteful.

• Packaging two standards is wasteful.

• US substrates should fit European extruded frames.

• European substrates should fit US extruded frames.

• I want access to metric cut size paper.

• Metric paper sizing makes more sense.

• And like I told Tan, metric is fun and it's free.

Fun is good, BlueStreak.

Okay, BlueStreak, you obviously are passionate and didactic about using mm's for typography and about universally applied metric systems, in general.

But your world is thankfully not my world. Please respect my interest in using picas and points for type. For me, to do otherwise feels awkward, forced, and "wrong." I don't have anything against using millimeters as a system of measurement in a quite a number of instances, and I rather prefer the A4, etc. proportions to the American letter size, but I'm not a fanatic about it.

I work in a manner that's appropriate to the context of the project at hand. If it was critical to a project's success that the type measurements were done in millimeters, I would do so, as weird as it would feel to me. But so far in my career I haven't been forced into that situation, so I work in a manner that's most natural and efficient for me.

For me, picas and points are very fun and free.

BTW, 10/13 point size precisely translates to 3.53/4.59 mm's. So a more accurate rounding would be 3.5/4.6. But if you're going to be didactic about using mm's anyway, why should you even care about pica/point translations?

And I don't know why you're bringing the subject of race into whether or not someone considers jazz to be "proper" music. You could be any shade of the rainbow and still not think that jazz was proper. Although, I happen to have a deep love for jazz. It's on my radio right right now.

Hey, I'm all for fun—even when it's in heated argument.

Peace.

Whilst reading this discussion for the past few days, I've been working on a job that uses a US paper size: 11" x 8.5"

Rather than converting the measurements to mm, as I would normally have done, I decided to bite the bullet and go imperial.

Now, as I said before, inches are a royal pain in the buttocks, but this difficulty began to push me towards the pica.

AND SUDDENLY IT ALL MADE SENSE!

The pica is such a friendly little unit. In the same way I can visualise 5mm as a little, but not tiny, distance; so can I visualise the pica. But with the added benefit that I can now divide into 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 without a decimal point.

Suddenly all of the dialogue boxes in Quark are happy and smilling, with single digits in them, where they once were straining to carry a cacophony of decimal digits.

And best of all: I don't have to round a third up to .334 (a little flaw of nature that has been eating away at my soul for years)

The humble pica really cheered me up today. But I know that in the next few days I'll have to switch back to metric A sizes, and my new friend the pica will have to put his little shackles back on - and only measure my type.

Metric measurements are infinitely more convenient than inches, but picas are great. I wish they could get along better.

If only the pica was a little bit bigger. If it measured 5mm (instead of 4.22mm) the two systems would get along just fine. Sure, all our type would get a bit bigger too - but I'm sure we'd soon get used to that - it's happened in the past.

And then there'd be nothing to stop us abandoning the horrible, nasty inch once and for all

Metric measurements are infinitely more convenient than inches, but picas are great. I wish they could get along better.

Maybe we need a new unit of measure. We could call it univers or meta.

Oh no! Let fonts be fonts.

How about the mica. Get it? ;-)

Would 6 micas make a minch?

(Try saying that after a few beers!)

Steven, you're a genius!

Wheras 'pica' is latin for 'magpie' (what a species of bird has to do with measuring type I've no idea), 'mica' is latin for 'crumb', 'morsel' or 'grain'.

Perfectly appropriate: 'a small bit of something'

HOORAY FOR THE MICA!

Steven,

In an effort to demonstrate my good will and respect for your view of points. I'm declaring today "Soshea Day" at BlueStreakStudio. I'm setting all software preferences to points, hiding all metric rulers, and have already tuned in to KCSM-Jazz 91.

The "whitey" comment was tongue-in-cheek. I'm mostly a whitey throughout the winter months. For anyone offended, please accept my apology.

And when the "mica" measurement standard is finished, I'm first in line to use it.

Have a great day.

Hey, BlueStreak--

Peace bro! No need to have Soshea Day (although working with picas for some tasks is a good thing and it's always good to keep an open mind about processes; I've certainly had to evolve how I work over the years).

And, hopefully you'll come to love KCSM as much as I do. It's a GREAT jazz station streaming live from the SF Bay Area to the greater planet. BTW, Fridays from 9pm to midnight (PST) they play all blues; Sundays from 2pm to 6pm they have all Latin jazz (many genres!); Thursdays from 10pm to 2am they play avant garde jazz; and during the day (PST) they generally play pretty swingin' stuff.

Tom B--

Yeah, I was thinking it went something like this:

12 moints = mica = .5 cm

and

6 micas makes a minch, with12 minches making a moot...

(Okay, I'll stop there at the edge of extreme silliness) ;-)

I fully appreciate the goodness that points and picas can bring to designing, but have a hell of a time trying to pick it up. As a designer who's worked mostly in web, i often slip into thinking of things in pixels, even when working on the occasional print piece, and I can't seem to cease the habit of switching back and forth between inch and pica.

Does anyone have any tips or recommended exercises to pick up on the system, or do you just have to spend years typesetting and laying out in picas to get it?

Maybe i'll splurge next paycheck and get it tattooed on the inside of my forearm. ;-)

munki — points and picas don't really translate well to web. Neither does inches or metrics, really. If pushing pixels is mostly what you do, then conversion doesn't really make any sense.

Points and picas is really for print. But it doesn't take as long to learn it as you may think — most students I've taught it to adapt to it within a matter of weeks.

Half of the measurements are worthless—I never used ciceros and I long ago admitted that inch points were worthwhile (although part of me still thinks it's just wrong)—but one of my trusty pica poles turned out to be an excellent tool for helping open a rain-swollen studio window.

Metrics isn't the European standard. It's the world standard. With the exception of US-legacy software, companies and systems (which, I'll admit, are sizeable - down to pipe sizes and the thread on screws), virtually all scientific and engineering work done worldwide is in metrics. So it follows that if you are working with a designed product that was designed in metric, it makes sense to use metrics as well, if integration is important.

For engineers, it's full of shortcuts - 100x100x100 mm is one litre, 1x1x1m is one thousand litres, a thousand metres is a kilometre, a million square metres is a square kilometre... water is very close to 1kg in weight for one litre, or a tonne for a cubic metre. (So a ten litre jerrycan of water weighs 10 kg; a 200 litre drum 200kg etc... )

Things fall at about 10 metres per second per second (incidentally the 'Systeme Interationale' unit for time is the second - hours and minutes are often used for convenience but never in calculation. Likewise centimetres are never used by engineers or scientists - they use microns, millimetres, metres and kilometres.)

So everything is based around tens or thousands, and you never have to throw in silly conversion factors to switch from cubic feet to square yards etc (engineers trained in metrics can't actually believe that imperial-unit engineers know all of these factors by heart - through experience.)

What does this have to do with graphic design? Almost nothing. Once you have a page you can divide it up any way you please. There's no doubt that starting with a number of 72 is a hell of a lot handier than 100..