skip to main content
10.1145/2361354.2361361acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdocengConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Learning how to trade off aesthetic criteria in layout

Published: 04 September 2012 Publication History

Abstract

Typesetting software is often faced with conflicting aesthetic goals. For example, choosing where to break lines in text might involve aiming to minimize hyphenation, variation in word spacing, and consecutive lines starting with the same word. Typically, automatic layout is modelled as an optimization problem in which the goal is to minimize a complex objective function that combines various penalty functions each of which corresponds to a particular bad feature. Determining how to combine these penalty functions is difficult and very time consuming, becoming harder each time we add another penalty. Here we present a machine-learning approach to do this, and test it in the context of line-breaking. Our approach repeatedly queries the expert typographer as to which one of a pair of layouts is better, and accordingly refines the estimate of how best to weight the penalties in a linear combination. It chooses layout pair queries by a heuristic to maximize the amount that can be learnt from them so as to reduce the number of combinations that must be considered by the typographer.

References

[1]
H. Gunes and M. Piccardi. Assessing facial beauty through proportion analysis by image processing and supervised learning. International journal of human-computer studies, 64(12):1184--1199, 2006.
[2]
A. Holkner. Global multiple objective line breaking. Honours thesis, RMIT University, Australia, 2006.
[3]
N. Hurst, W. Li, and K. Marriott. Review of automatic document formatting. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM symposium on Document engineering, pages 99--108. ACM, 2009.
[4]
D. E. Knuth and M. F. Plass. Breaking paragraphs into lines. In Software--Practice and Experience, 11(11), pages 1119--1184, Nov. 1982.
[5]
D. Malerba, F. Esposito, O. Altamura, M. Ceci, and M. Berardi. Correcting the document layout: A machine learning approach. In Document Analysis and Recognition, 2003. Proceedings. Seventh International Conference on, pages 97--102. IEEE, 2003.
[6]
S. Russell and P. Norvig. Artificial Intelligence: a Modern Approach. Prentice Hall, 2nd edition, 2002.
[7]
T. Saaty. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.
[8]
B. Schölkopf and A. Smola. Single-Class Problems: Quantile Estimation and Novelty Detection, chapter 8. MIT Press, 2002.
[9]
I. Steinwart and A. Christmann. Support Vector Machines. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2008.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Similarity Problems in Paragraph Justification: An Extension to the Knuth-Plass AlgorithmProceedings of the ACM Symposium on Document Engineering 202410.1145/3685650.3685666(1-4)Online publication date: 20-Aug-2024
  • (2017)Beyond GridsProceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3025453.3025718(5053-5064)Online publication date: 2-May-2017

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
DocEng '12: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM symposium on Document engineering
September 2012
256 pages
ISBN:9781450311168
DOI:10.1145/2361354
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

In-Cooperation

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 04 September 2012

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. line-breaking
  2. multi-objective optimization
  3. progressive articulation of preference
  4. typography

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

DocEng '12
Sponsor:
DocEng '12: ACM Symposium on Document Engineering
September 4 - 7, 2012
Paris, France

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 194 of 564 submissions, 34%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)3
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 15 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Similarity Problems in Paragraph Justification: An Extension to the Knuth-Plass AlgorithmProceedings of the ACM Symposium on Document Engineering 202410.1145/3685650.3685666(1-4)Online publication date: 20-Aug-2024
  • (2017)Beyond GridsProceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3025453.3025718(5053-5064)Online publication date: 2-May-2017

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media