From yesterday’s Washington Post: One space between each sentence, they said. Science just proved them wrong.
Some reactions:
As has become commonplace, the headline is a little overzealous. The scientists behind the study probably wouldn’t use such strong language, and the rest of the article is a little more cautious in the language it uses when drawing conclusions from the research.
The researchers used a fixed-width/monospace typeface. To say that misses the point is an understatement. Even most of us one-space zealots admit that two spaces makes sense for monospace type.
One of the study’s authors says it’s still reasonable to infer from this that their results would also apply to proportional type, but her reasoning only makes sense if you don’t understand how fonts work, or the real reason one space makes more sense:
…the point of double-spacing is to make up for how monospace type looks weird and janky.
It’s about aesthetics.
The “benefits” of two spaces after a period were only observed in study participants who… wait for it… are people who usually type two spaces themselves. Maybe they didn’t actually learn anything about typography or font legibility, but rather about people being stuck in their own habits.
Major kudos to the Post article’s author, Avi Selk, and to whoever was responsible for formatting the online version. The piece uses a monospace font and all sorts of crazy spacing tricks to literally show instead of just tell. It’s thoughtful, creative, and very effective.
(And you gotta love the note at the end, which is — ironically enough — a nail in the coffin of the two-space argument: “Note: An earlier version of this story published incorrectly because, seriously, putting two spaces in the headline broke the web code.”)
Sorry, but the “science” doesn’t prove anything here. Lifehacker’s take on this is right on: “No, You Still Shouldn’t Put Two Spaces After a Period.”