... Plus, the webfont that we are delivering are with internationalization
in mind, and not design. Nice typography is a very important thing, but its
priority is not as high as making it possible to read text that is
otherwise unreadable.
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
2014-03-05 20:34 GMT+02:00 Steven Walling <swalling(a)wikimedia.org>rg>:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Max <max(a)koehler-kn.de> wrote:
*> If there is a very specific 'right
font', why aren't we using it as a
webfont?*
I think webfonts are amazing, and we should definitely use them. However,
even with webfonts using a font stack is a good idea. What if the user has
an old browser that doesn't support webfonts? What if the user chose not to
download font files to save bandwidth? In those cases we still want to do
our best to ensure a decent reading experience, which isn't always possible
with the default fallbacks.
Our font stack would look something like this:
'Fancy pants Webfont Pro', DejaVu Sans, Arial, sans-serif;
The answer to "why aren't we using webfonts" is that we're not
resourced
to implement a homegrown delivery system that scales to Wikimedia-size
traffic without a performance hit. Previous webfonts delivery that we've
done for localization and accessibility has been rocky on the performance
front, and it's not realistic for us right now to implement a system that
delivers webfonts for all text to all users. (And we can't rely on TypeKit
or Google webfonts system like many other sites).
--
Steven Walling,
Product Manager
https://wikimediafoundation.org/
_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
Design(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design