OK I have taken a look at this, and while the existing options are not great, this is not a compelling improvement, and I wouldn’t be able to recommend these to anyone asking. The formatting needs a ton of work. It’s fine to have quirks (I never capitalize pronouns mid-sentence even those referring to the Persons of the Trinity, for example.)

“The” is rarely proper; in this case, it should always be lowercase. It is also not necessary on the cover page.

I don’t understand not giving the propers in Latin while giving the incipit, which the congregation never needs. Omitting the doxology is also atypical.

The shifting of the chant alignment to fit the translation is poorly done. Also, in the Gloria, you have no idea when the priest sits anywhere else and with any other celebrant. The Sanctus alignment is probably the best use of the Mass & Vespers formatting; otherwise, it’s better to do like at the Agnus where the translation simply follow.

The indentation shifts unpredictably, as if you meant to use drop caps in the collect but decided against it. The same reoccurs elsewhere such as in the nuptial blessing. This is also true of the dialogues. You don’t need space if you insist on bold instead of the slashed V & R, but those are the standard characters. We are reinventing the wheel here. Also, the Maltese cross is the standard character for the sign of the cross, and the dagger has another meaning in liturgical typesetting. I would simply replace every example of the latter with the former. (There are a few exceptions where one is making the sign of the cross on the lips or the heart but generally one uses the Maltese cross for making the sign of the cross over oneself or an item.)

The spacing of the quotation in the epistle is non-standard. Just put it all in one long paragraph. Ditto for the Gospel. Also, the indentation switching from standard to the hanging indent for the two kind of readings is jarring.

I would not use the ICEL translation especially as you use an older translation for the other parts. (The you-thou usage is jarring.) But if you are going to do so, a copyright statement is not optional, and I am not even sure that you can use it this way anyway (for a one-time booklet, yes; they might be OK with a Latin-English NO booklet, but you have to ask).

“Laus tibi Christe” is not said at a sung Mass anyway, and it’s unclear what the words below it mean if you don’t already know.

The nuptial preface is merely an option. I certainly wouldn’t assume that it would be used…

I do booklets on a semiregular basis. Also, the bottom line for me is that anything silent should be in an appendix with a page reference where it occurs linearly in the Mass, and only out-loud material should be present in the body. People don’t care that much, and if they do, they have a missal or device.

Well, that’s another can of worms. New Solesmes (and everyone but Solesmes back in the day) uses the more classical c-t, but -ct has a long history too.

The problem is that the lines of chant start in different places on the same page…that’s hard to follow.

You are correct that it is not consistent, but that is by design - when any formatting rule is applied across the text very consistently, it makes things unwieldy and even ugly at times.

De gustibus but then again I don’t know how you’re actually generating the booklets.

All due respect I’ve spent a lot of time formatting beautiful booklets. I stand by my remarks, and if the preview makes it look weird, then is it worth purchasing? Probably not.

Yes, it’s weird to omit the Gloria Patri, even if it’s shortened to Gloria Patri & Glory be followed by a period, then just the incipit with a period.

In previous iterations of this booklet, this instruction has been easily understood by the congregation.

Are you, like, not reading what I said here? It’s fine for your own place. But I don’t want to guess when a celebrant is sitting (or if he does at all) if offering these up for others without also offering source formatting.

Not exactly. I think you recommended the V&R in a previous iteration, and having given it another try, I am thankful for that suggestion. That being said, the bold here is used only when the congregation is encouraged to respond, whereas the R is reserved for server responses only (when the congregation remains silent.)

Then you didn’t ask for clarification. Just be normal and use the slashed characters like, I kid you not, every other booklet. I have no idea what the bold is supposed to mean.

For marriages, if you only want the server or deacon and subdeacon to respond at the beginning, don’t put in the Latin, and don’t include silent parts that the congregation cannot possibly hear anyway.

The nuptial preface is merely an option. I certainly wouldn’t assume that it would be used.
I had the perfect amount of room for exactly one preface, so I went with the one that would be the most appropriate

I’m going to be blunt because you are not getting with it here: no, it isn’t the most appropriate. A handful of diocesan priests will use it. Virtually none of the ex-PCED communities do. The common preface is still going to be more frequently used, followed by seasonal prefaces when the day permits the votive Mass but calls for a seasonal preface.

This was found to be very helpful for tracking one's place in the mass, especially for newcomers.

Which, okay, whatever, your booklet, but you’re asking people to pay for it whereas I’m definitely a take-it-or-leave it guy (and as of late my source files are available, or could be made available, plus I do welcome proofreading comments).

Bottom line, you have made a lot of what I would describe as choices, and anything less than felicitous with more standard (and therefore more beautiful) typographical conventions can be fixed…like please, just standardize the indentation and not switch between the two same types of text.