bill hill wrote:For proportionally-spaced fonts (that's what we call non-fixed-space) two spaces is ugly, and slows the flow.
Could you explain how proportionally-spaced fonts has any bearing on the number of spaces to follow a sentence? On the surface, the spacing of fonts seems as if it could affect the spacing after a sentence, but I don't see anywhere that it does.
So far, there have been several arguments for the legitimacy of double-spacing.
The arguments against have been shallow and subjective, without any concrete evidence. You claim that two spaces slows the flow. I argue the contrary. It provides a visual cue to allow the reader to more easily differentiate the end of the sentence, allowing the non-symantic portion of the brain to process structural information in parallel with the symantic information.
Some have claimed that "reading" that extra space takes extra time, but that can only be the case for someone who reads character by character, and I'll guarantee that 99% of the population does not read that way. The fastest readers don't even parse the text word by word, but rather in grammatical and structural chunks.
I'd like to hear an argument for single spacing more than "it's old and we don't have to do it anymore" or "I don't like it".