Comparing Type Widths - Characters Per Pica

As I recall, Adobe used to have reference information on their website that
provided the comparative character per pica (cpp) counts for their type faces.
For comparison purposes, this cpp number was listed for the 10 point size. For
example, you could look up Bembo and compare the cpp to Adobe Garamond to see
which is the most economical in type with. The cpp is a fractional number and
you figure how many pages you would save by going to a more economical type
face.

The Adobe website talks about measuring type widths, and how the width is
measured by cpp, and how that information is useful, but customer support tells
me that information is no longer on the website. Big help that is!

John,

I have a vague recollection of this issue being discussed relative recently in
the Adobe Typography forum. The end result was, I believe, that Adobe no longer
supplies that information because in the electronic age it's not very necessary.
Try a search of that forum.

I found these existing threads:

Thomas Phinney, "Looking for a condensed serif face" #4, 11 Dec 2006
8:46 pm </cgi-bin/webx?14@@.3bc2826d/3>

Dominic Hurley, "Typographical math" #1, 1 Mar 2007 2:16 pm
</cgi-bin/webx?14@@.3bc349ab/0>



From the first link:

      Thomas Phinney - 8:46pm Dec 11, 06 PST (#4 of 7) 	 	 Edited: 11-Dec-2006
      at 07:47pm

      No, Adobe no longer maintains the old CPP (characters per pica) listings.
      That method of checking line lengths seems to have phased out gradually
      over the digital type era, because it's so easy to just "try it and
see"
      in digital type.

      In any case, I think you'll have problems finding any condensed serif
      typeface that is as condensed as Myriad Condensed at the same point size.
      If you do find it, it probably won't be very legible.

      I strongly suspect you'd be better off taking something like Minion Pro
      Condensed Caption at a smaller point size. Just keep on adjusting it
until
      you find the maximum size that fits.

      Regards,

      T

      Thomas Phinney
      Product Manager (Adobe)
      Fonts & Global Typography

My recall is similar to Ramón's on this point. Whereas in the days of hot metal
and foundry you could blow your entire creative budget on a reset if you got the
font size or leading wrong, today, trial and error takes just a few seconds or
so for the average job. You're over by 3 pages? Cut the leading .5 pt. Or cut
the point size .25 pt. A lot more freedom here at a minimum cost of time or
money.

I used to spend hours doing copy casting from client manuscripts, and hoped that
I got it right. I haven't used character counts or a Haberule since about 1990
or so.

John, 

      Resetting the type for already completed chapters is not really an
option.




But why not? 25 years ago I'd agree with you. But, with all due respect, unless
I'm completely misunderstanding your work process, to me it seems that adjusting
what is already set to compensate for overset or short copy or for widows and
orphans -- by modifying my style configurations -- is faster and more accurate
than old-style copy casting. By doing this on the fly, you know almost instantly
how the copy is going to look, instead of guessing and copy counting copy
blocks. Of course, for both the old way and the new way, you still have to go
through the book and fix locally bad breaks, or tweak the location of photos and
charts.

There is simply no way to do a copy count and know for sure sure how long a book
is going to be or where all the breaks are going to be. I start with a basic
spec, based upon experience and common sense or publisher's standard: font,
size, leading, column width for each style, tracking, etc. I set it. I review
what I've set. I either adjust the basic spec or make local adjustments
depending upon on the extent of what has to be done. How is this less efficient
than manually copy casting the entire book?