On 10/29/2013 03:30 PM, S Page wrote:
Quim:
And if we want to specify any fonts in our works, they should be free.Uh, why? Mac users actually have Helvetica Neue, the nicest-looking font, Windows users have Georgia. The presence of these names in our CSS does nothing to hinder the cause of free fonts.
Yes, it does hinder the cause of free fonts. We won't help scratching the itch because in practice we will rely on a proprietary solution for our UX work targeting the majority of users. While not forcing anybody to use free fonts, our mockups, tests, reviews, screenshots and what not will all assume the happy coincidence that Helvetica Neue ("the most ubiquitous in advertising copy and logos") and Georgia (Microsoft Corporation) are everywhere.
Now compare with this hypothetical scenario: we actually bet on a set of optional free fonts, because we care about typography as much as we care about freedom. We use them as default in our mockups, tests, reviews, screenshots and what not. We serve them as web fonts, we bundle them in our apps and offline versions, we promote them to the users missing them in their systems. We take note of our own itches and user feedback, and we file bugs and enhancement requests upstream, or send/commission improvements. This way we contribute spreading free typography, just like we contribute spreading other areas of free knowledge, free culture and free software.
Removing them would be detrimental for most of our users.
Detrimental... they would still be able to access all our content and functionality without losing a single readable character, right? A lot less "detrimental" than not serving them conveniently mp3, mpeg, flash, Facebook/Twitter/Google login, and other proprietary options already installed in your average Mac / Windows desktop that we decided not to support.
If the above scenario to improve the MediaWiki/Wikimedia UX by improving free fonts is not exciting, or a priority, then at least we could be neutral and not promote actively any proprietary font either.