#lang pollen

◊(define-meta title "headings")
◊hanging-topic[(topic-from-metas metas)]{Fewer levels; 
subtler emphasis}

◊em{Headings} present two problems: structural and typographic. Cure the structural problem and the typographic problem becomes simpler.

The main structural problem is that lawyers often use too many levels of headings. This leads to increasingly desperate attempts to make them visually distinct, usually with injudicious combinations of ◊xref{bold or italic}, ◊xref{underlining}, ◊xref{point size}, ◊xref{all caps}, and ◊xref{first-line indents}. The result is trainwrecks like this:

◊p[#:style "padding-left:18rem;"]{◊u{◊em{◊strong{
iv.) The Defendant Has 
Sufficient Minimum Contacts with California.}}}}

Headings are signposts for readers that reveal the structure of your argument. Note that I didn’t say the structure of your ◊em{document}. Headings that announce every topic, subtopic, minitopic, and microtopic are exhausting. If you write from an outline, that can be a good starting point for your headings, but don’t stop there — simplify it further.

Limit yourself to three levels of headings. Two is better. Readers should be able to orient themselves from the headings. With more than three levels, that task becomes hopelessly confusing.