<quote name="Steven Walling" date="2014-03-09" time="01:02:35 +0000">
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Quim Gil qgil@wikimedia.org wrote:
Regardless of the conscious decisions of Wikimedia designers, it seems that such decisions are overridden by the conscious decisions of OS and browser vendors. As long as web fonts are out of the table, it seems that the difference between "sans-serif" and a full fledged font stack including proprietary fonts is none for the majority of users (Windows and Android), slight for the minority of Linux users, and then, yes, Apple users get Helvetica Neue instead of Helvetica.
Quim,
You're making the same mistake Rob did in his assessment on Wikitech-l, by ignoring all of the other changes in the typography update. The change to the body text stack is a slight one in some sense, yes. But it's not the only change. In addition to adding the explicit sans-serif body styles, there is also change to the body font color, size, and line spacing.
I think that's an unfair characterization of both Quim and Robla.
Those other parts of the typography refresh update are interesting in and of themselves (and are probably useful, I haven't sat down and really studied the difference).
What I have sat down and studied over the years is free software.
(OMG, HE SAID FREE SOFTWARE, GET HIM!)
But seriously, the Wikimedia Foundation and the MediaWiki project are Free Software aligned; always have been and barring some very strange events, always will be.
The amount of discussion devoted to the body copy font stack in particular signals to me that people most concerned about this are doing so because of the entirely irrational dislike of referring to a font that is not FOSS. This is superficial, and it fails to bring the focus back to what is going to achieve a more consistent, usable, and beautiful reading experience for all.
"Irrational dislike of [something] that is not FOSS."
Steven. Seriously? That's not useful. Calling my 'dislike' of non-FOSS things "irrational" is just telling me to shut up and let the design team use whatever they want. By calling the other side of the argument "irrational" you give them/me no way of responding.
So, hi, let me start this over.
Steven (and the design team),
The Wikimedia Foundation and the MediaWiki project are Free Software aligned. Always have been, always will be.
Any concious choice to promote non-Free *anything* is a choice we must make with eyes wide open. Discussion about the Free-ness of our software (and what that software relies on/promotes) is valid in our community. It isn't easier than ignoring those aspects. But it's the right thing to do. Saying that our ideals about Free Software are "irrational" only makes the Design team sound out of touch.
So please, let's try to actually talk specifics.
So far, all I can tell from everyone's messages (I've read them all) is that the users who will get a 'better' font from this will be Apple users only (Helvetica Neue vs plain ol Helvetica). Now, after more investigation by Ryan (THANKS!) there might be a change from DejaVu to Liberation for non-Apple users.
I think it is safe to say that the DejaVu -> Liberation change wasn't a part of the plan for this typography refresh and that the font of choice is, obviously, Helvetica Neue. Yes, there are the other aspects of the refresh like color, size, and line spacing, but those aren't 100% tied to the font (if it were, you wouldn't really be changing those things for everyone who didn't have Helvetica Neue, would you?).
So, again, I think that a contentious change to promote non-Free fonts so that Apple users will get the Neue hotness is really not justified.
I'm willing to be proven wrong, but every time someone like Quim makes a point it is ignored on this list, so my stance stays the same.
Greg