<quote name="Federico Leva (Nemo)" date="2014-02-15" time="22:52:31 +0100">
And surely, before WMF/"MediaWiki" tell the world that no free fonts of good quality exist, there will be some document detailing exactly why and based on what arguments/data/research the numerous free alternatives were all rejected? Free fonts developers are an invaluable resource for serving Wikimedia projects' content in all languages, we shouldn't carelessly slap them in their face.
I just skimmed the entire thread again, and yes, this has been requested a few times but no one from the WMF Design team has responded with that analysis (or if would respond with an analysis). The first time it was requested the person was told to ask the Design list, then the next message CC'd the design list, but no response on that point.
I don't see much on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh nor it's talk page. Nor https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Design/Typography
cc'ing the Design list :)
Greg
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Greg Grossmeier greg@wikimedia.org wrote:
<quote name="Federico Leva (Nemo)" date="2014-02-15" time="22:52:31 +0100"> > And surely, before WMF/"MediaWiki" tell the world that no free fonts > of good quality exist, there will be some document detailing exactly > why and based on what arguments/data/research the numerous free > alternatives were all rejected? Free fonts developers are an > invaluable resource for serving Wikimedia projects' content in all > languages, we shouldn't carelessly slap them in their face.
I just skimmed the entire thread again, and yes, this has been requested a few times but no one from the WMF Design team has responded with that analysis (or if would respond with an analysis). The first time it was requested the person was told to ask the Design list, then the next message CC'd the design list, but no response on that point.
I don't see much on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh nor it's talk page. Nor https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Design/Typography
There wasn't an answer because the question is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way CSS works and options that are within our reach. The question isn't "are there good free fonts?" the question is "can we deliver good free fonts to all users?". I'll try to help the UX team document the answer better.
<quote name="Steven Walling" date="2014-02-15" time="16:08:41 -0800">
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Greg Grossmeier greg@wikimedia.org wrote:
<quote name="Federico Leva (Nemo)" date="2014-02-15" time="22:52:31 +0100"> > And surely, before WMF/"MediaWiki" tell the world that no free fonts > of good quality exist, there will be some document detailing exactly > why and based on what arguments/data/research the numerous free > alternatives were all rejected? Free fonts developers are an > invaluable resource for serving Wikimedia projects' content in all > languages, we shouldn't carelessly slap them in their face.
I just skimmed the entire thread again, and yes, this has been requested a few times but no one from the WMF Design team has responded with that analysis (or if would respond with an analysis). The first time it was requested the person was told to ask the Design list, then the next message CC'd the design list, but no response on that point.
I don't see much on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh nor it's talk page. Nor https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Design/Typography
There wasn't an answer because the question is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way CSS works and options that are within our reach. The question isn't "are there good free fonts?" the question is "can we deliver good free fonts to all users?". I'll try to help the UX team document the answer better.
Thanks.
I may be part of the misunderstanding-of-how-things-work-in-font-land contingent. Advice/clarity appreciated.
Greg
Frankly, I think there has been a large degree of intransigence on both sides. The free font advocates have refused to identify the fonts that they want to be considered and why they should be considered other than the fact that they are free, and the designers have refused to take any initiative on considering free fonts. The free fonts that I know have been considered are: * DejaVu Serif. Conclusion: Widely installed, but horribly ugly and looks nothing like the style desired by the designers. * Nimbus Roman No9 L. Conclusion: Basically a clone of Times. Most Linux systems map Times to Nimbus Roman No9 L, so there is no advantage to specifying "Nimbus Roman No9 L" rather than "Times" (which also maps to fonts on Windows and Mac). * Linux Libertine. Conclusion: A well-designed free font that matches the look of the Wikipedia wordmark. Unfortunately, it is not installed by default on any systems (as far as anyone knows) but is bundled with LibreOffice as an application font. If MediaWiki were using webfonts, this would likely be the serif font of choice rather than Georgia, but since we are relying on pre-installed fonts, it would be rather pointless to list it. * Liberation Sans. Conclusion: Essentially a free substitute for Arial. Like Nimbus Roman, there is no advantage to specifying "Liberation Sans" instead of "Arial" (which is at the bottom of the sans-serif stack) since Linux systems will map to Liberation Sans anyway, while other systems will apply Arial.
As to proving the quality of Georgia and Helvetica Neue, I don't think the designers have done that, but I also haven't seen any evidence from the free font advocates concerning the quality of any free fonts. So in my view, both sides of the debate have been delinquent.
Ryan Kaldari
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Greg Grossmeier greg@wikimedia.org wrote:
<quote name="Steven Walling" date="2014-02-15" time="16:08:41 -0800"> > On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Greg Grossmeier <greg@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > > <quote name="Federico Leva (Nemo)" date="2014-02-15" time="22:52:31 +0100"> > > > And surely, before WMF/"MediaWiki" tell the world that no free fonts > > > of good quality exist, there will be some document detailing exactly > > > why and based on what arguments/data/research the numerous free > > > alternatives were all rejected? Free fonts developers are an > > > invaluable resource for serving Wikimedia projects' content in all > > > languages, we shouldn't carelessly slap them in their face. > > > > I just skimmed the entire thread again, and yes, this has been requested > > a few times but no one from the WMF Design team has responded with that > > analysis (or if would respond with an analysis). The first time it was > > requested the person was told to ask the Design list, then the next > > message CC'd the design list, but no response on that point. > > > > I don't see much on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh > > nor it's talk page. Nor > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Design/Typography > > > > There wasn't an answer because the question is a fundamental > misunderstanding of the way CSS works and options that are within our > reach. The question isn't "are there good free fonts?" the question is "can > we deliver good free fonts to all users?". I'll try to help the UX team > document the answer better.
Thanks.
I may be part of the misunderstanding-of-how-things-work-in-font-land contingent. Advice/clarity appreciated.
Greg
-- | Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E | | identi.ca: @greg A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Now that I've blamed everyone except for myself, I would like to suggest that we stop pointing fingers and get down to brass tacks.
My question for both the designers and the free font advocates is: Are there any free fonts that are... 1. widely installed (at least on Linux systems) 2. easily readable and not distractingly ugly 3. would not be mapped to by the existing stack anyway (i.e. are not simply clones or substitutes for popular commercial fonts)
If so, I think they deserve at least as much consideration as Georgia and Helvetica Neue.
Ryan Kaldari
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:07 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Frankly, I think there has been a large degree of intransigence on both sides. The free font advocates have refused to identify the fonts that they want to be considered and why they should be considered other than the fact that they are free, and the designers have refused to take any initiative on considering free fonts. The free fonts that I know have been considered are:
- DejaVu Serif. Conclusion: Widely installed, but horribly ugly and looks
nothing like the style desired by the designers.
- Nimbus Roman No9 L. Conclusion: Basically a clone of Times. Most Linux
systems map Times to Nimbus Roman No9 L, so there is no advantage to specifying "Nimbus Roman No9 L" rather than "Times" (which also maps to fonts on Windows and Mac).
- Linux Libertine. Conclusion: A well-designed free font that matches the
look of the Wikipedia wordmark. Unfortunately, it is not installed by default on any systems (as far as anyone knows) but is bundled with LibreOffice as an application font. If MediaWiki were using webfonts, this would likely be the serif font of choice rather than Georgia, but since we are relying on pre-installed fonts, it would be rather pointless to list it.
- Liberation Sans. Conclusion: Essentially a free substitute for Arial.
Like Nimbus Roman, there is no advantage to specifying "Liberation Sans" instead of "Arial" (which is at the bottom of the sans-serif stack) since Linux systems will map to Liberation Sans anyway, while other systems will apply Arial.
As to proving the quality of Georgia and Helvetica Neue, I don't think the designers have done that, but I also haven't seen any evidence from the free font advocates concerning the quality of any free fonts. So in my view, both sides of the debate have been delinquent.
Ryan Kaldari
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Greg Grossmeier greg@wikimedia.orgwrote:
<quote name="Steven Walling" date="2014-02-15" time="16:08:41 -0800"> > On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Greg Grossmeier <greg@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > > <quote name="Federico Leva (Nemo)" date="2014-02-15" time="22:52:31 +0100"> > > > And surely, before WMF/"MediaWiki" tell the world that no free fonts > > > of good quality exist, there will be some document detailing exactly > > > why and based on what arguments/data/research the numerous free > > > alternatives were all rejected? Free fonts developers are an > > > invaluable resource for serving Wikimedia projects' content in all > > > languages, we shouldn't carelessly slap them in their face. > > > > I just skimmed the entire thread again, and yes, this has been requested > > a few times but no one from the WMF Design team has responded with that > > analysis (or if would respond with an analysis). The first time it was > > requested the person was told to ask the Design list, then the next > > message CC'd the design list, but no response on that point. > > > > I don't see much on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh > > nor it's talk page. Nor > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Design/Typography > > > > There wasn't an answer because the question is a fundamental > misunderstanding of the way CSS works and options that are within our > reach. The question isn't "are there good free fonts?" the question is "can > we deliver good free fonts to all users?". I'll try to help the UX team > document the answer better.
Thanks.
I may be part of the misunderstanding-of-how-things-work-in-font-land contingent. Advice/clarity appreciated.
Greg
-- | Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E | | identi.ca: @greg A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Ryan,
Thanks for this analysis, I think it is a good summary of the thinking on the matter. The current order of fonts specified seems to be the best ordering seems to achieve the desired look and feel short of loading free webfonts, which the design team is not opposed to, but it would take more research.
I do feel the design team has made a good effort to evaluate all of the fonts suggested by the community, and come to the conclusions that you clearly enumerated above, which is that specifying any of these fonts has one or more of the of the following consequences.
1. Penalize Linux users who have purposefully installed non-free fonts which map to the the desired design goals 2. Have no real effect, other that to appear to be endorsing FOSS fonts 3. Actively choose fonts which either don't look good (according to both users and the design team)
Long term lets invest (time, money, expertise) to build or extend a beautiful well designed typeface that suites the needs of our projects. Let's investigate how this could affect performance of the site, but its a pretty common practice even for large, popular sites, so i'm sure it's doable, given enough research.
*Jared Zimmerman * \ Director of User Experience \ Wikimedia Foundation
M : +1 415 609 4043 | : @JaredZimmermanhttps://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Now that I've blamed everyone except for myself, I would like to suggest that we stop pointing fingers and get down to brass tacks.
My question for both the designers and the free font advocates is: Are there any free fonts that are...
- widely installed (at least on Linux systems)
- easily readable and not distractingly ugly
- would not be mapped to by the existing stack anyway (i.e. are not
simply clones or substitutes for popular commercial fonts)
If so, I think they deserve at least as much consideration as Georgia and Helvetica Neue.
Ryan Kaldari
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:07 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Frankly, I think there has been a large degree of intransigence on both sides. The free font advocates have refused to identify the fonts that they want to be considered and why they should be considered other than the fact that they are free, and the designers have refused to take any initiative on considering free fonts. The free fonts that I know have been considered are:
- DejaVu Serif. Conclusion: Widely installed, but horribly ugly and looks
nothing like the style desired by the designers.
- Nimbus Roman No9 L. Conclusion: Basically a clone of Times. Most Linux
systems map Times to Nimbus Roman No9 L, so there is no advantage to specifying "Nimbus Roman No9 L" rather than "Times" (which also maps to fonts on Windows and Mac).
- Linux Libertine. Conclusion: A well-designed free font that matches the
look of the Wikipedia wordmark. Unfortunately, it is not installed by default on any systems (as far as anyone knows) but is bundled with LibreOffice as an application font. If MediaWiki were using webfonts, this would likely be the serif font of choice rather than Georgia, but since we are relying on pre-installed fonts, it would be rather pointless to list it.
- Liberation Sans. Conclusion: Essentially a free substitute for Arial.
Like Nimbus Roman, there is no advantage to specifying "Liberation Sans" instead of "Arial" (which is at the bottom of the sans-serif stack) since Linux systems will map to Liberation Sans anyway, while other systems will apply Arial.
As to proving the quality of Georgia and Helvetica Neue, I don't think the designers have done that, but I also haven't seen any evidence from the free font advocates concerning the quality of any free fonts. So in my view, both sides of the debate have been delinquent.
Ryan Kaldari
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Greg Grossmeier greg@wikimedia.orgwrote:
<quote name="Steven Walling" date="2014-02-15" time="16:08:41 -0800"> > On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Greg Grossmeier <greg@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > > <quote name="Federico Leva (Nemo)" date="2014-02-15" time="22:52:31 +0100"> > > > And surely, before WMF/"MediaWiki" tell the world that no free fonts > > > of good quality exist, there will be some document detailing exactly > > > why and based on what arguments/data/research the numerous free > > > alternatives were all rejected? Free fonts developers are an > > > invaluable resource for serving Wikimedia projects' content in all > > > languages, we shouldn't carelessly slap them in their face. > > > > I just skimmed the entire thread again, and yes, this has been requested > > a few times but no one from the WMF Design team has responded with that > > analysis (or if would respond with an analysis). The first time it was > > requested the person was told to ask the Design list, then the next > > message CC'd the design list, but no response on that point. > > > > I don't see much on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh > > nor it's talk page. Nor > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Design/Typography > > > > There wasn't an answer because the question is a fundamental > misunderstanding of the way CSS works and options that are within our > reach. The question isn't "are there good free fonts?" the question is "can > we deliver good free fonts to all users?". I'll try to help the UX team > document the answer better.
Thanks.
I may be part of the misunderstanding-of-how-things-work-in-font-land contingent. Advice/clarity appreciated.
Greg
-- | Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E | | identi.ca: @greg A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Maybe I haven't looked in the right place, but why aren’t webfonts being considered?
Webfonts would mean the same fonts can be delivered everywhere, relying on installed font only as a last resort. There are more options than just the 4 fonts mentioned (DejaVu Serif, Nimbus Roman No9 L, Linux Libertine, Liberation Sans): PT Sans/PT Serif, Droid Sans/Droid Serif and likes (Open Sans, Noto), the other Liberation fonts and likes (Arimo, Tinos), Source Sans, Roboto, Ubuntu, Clear Sans, if you just want hinted fonts and household names.
I’ll also point out that Georgia is a great font originally designed for small size, and Helvetica Neue/Helvetica/Arial was originally designed for display. When it comes to language coverage both are lacking but that cannot be fixed easily.
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 6:13 AM, Jared Zimmerman < jared.zimmerman@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Ryan,
Thanks for this analysis, I think it is a good summary of the thinking on the matter. The current order of fonts specified seems to be the best ordering seems to achieve the desired look and feel short of loading free webfonts, which the design team is not opposed to, but it would take more research.
I do feel the design team has made a good effort to evaluate all of the fonts suggested by the community, and come to the conclusions that you clearly enumerated above, which is that specifying any of these fonts has one or more of the of the following consequences.
- Penalize Linux users who have purposefully installed non-free fonts
which map to the the desired design goals 2. Have no real effect, other that to appear to be endorsing FOSS fonts 3. Actively choose fonts which either don't look good (according to both users and the design team)
Long term lets invest (time, money, expertise) to build or extend a beautiful well designed typeface that suites the needs of our projects. Let's investigate how this could affect performance of the site, but its a pretty common practice even for large, popular sites, so i'm sure it's doable, given enough research.
*Jared Zimmerman * \ Director of User Experience \ Wikimedia Foundation M : +1 415 609 4043 | : @JaredZimmermanhttps://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Now that I've blamed everyone except for myself, I would like to suggest that we stop pointing fingers and get down to brass tacks.
My question for both the designers and the free font advocates is: Are there any free fonts that are...
- widely installed (at least on Linux systems)
- easily readable and not distractingly ugly
- would not be mapped to by the existing stack anyway (i.e. are not
simply clones or substitutes for popular commercial fonts)
If so, I think they deserve at least as much consideration as Georgia and Helvetica Neue.
Ryan Kaldari
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:07 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Frankly, I think there has been a large degree of intransigence on both sides. The free font advocates have refused to identify the fonts that they want to be considered and why they should be considered other than the fact that they are free, and the designers have refused to take any initiative on considering free fonts. The free fonts that I know have been considered are:
- DejaVu Serif. Conclusion: Widely installed, but horribly ugly and
looks nothing like the style desired by the designers.
- Nimbus Roman No9 L. Conclusion: Basically a clone of Times. Most
Linux systems map Times to Nimbus Roman No9 L, so there is no advantage to specifying "Nimbus Roman No9 L" rather than "Times" (which also maps to fonts on Windows and Mac).
- Linux Libertine. Conclusion: A well-designed free font that matches
the look of the Wikipedia wordmark. Unfortunately, it is not installed by default on any systems (as far as anyone knows) but is bundled with LibreOffice as an application font. If MediaWiki were using webfonts, this would likely be the serif font of choice rather than Georgia, but since we are relying on pre-installed fonts, it would be rather pointless to list it.
- Liberation Sans. Conclusion: Essentially a free substitute for Arial.
Like Nimbus Roman, there is no advantage to specifying "Liberation Sans" instead of "Arial" (which is at the bottom of the sans-serif stack) since Linux systems will map to Liberation Sans anyway, while other systems will apply Arial.
As to proving the quality of Georgia and Helvetica Neue, I don't think the designers have done that, but I also haven't seen any evidence from the free font advocates concerning the quality of any free fonts. So in my view, both sides of the debate have been delinquent.
Ryan Kaldari
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Greg Grossmeier greg@wikimedia.orgwrote:
<quote name="Steven Walling" date="2014-02-15" time="16:08:41 -0800"> > On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Greg Grossmeier <greg@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > > <quote name="Federico Leva (Nemo)" date="2014-02-15" time="22:52:31 +0100"> > > > And surely, before WMF/"MediaWiki" tell the world that no free fonts > > > of good quality exist, there will be some document detailing exactly > > > why and based on what arguments/data/research the numerous free > > > alternatives were all rejected? Free fonts developers are an > > > invaluable resource for serving Wikimedia projects' content in all > > > languages, we shouldn't carelessly slap them in their face. > > > > I just skimmed the entire thread again, and yes, this has been requested > > a few times but no one from the WMF Design team has responded with that > > analysis (or if would respond with an analysis). The first time it was > > requested the person was told to ask the Design list, then the next > > message CC'd the design list, but no response on that point. > > > > I don't see much on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh > > nor it's talk page. Nor > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Design/Typography > > > > There wasn't an answer because the question is a fundamental > misunderstanding of the way CSS works and options that are within our > reach. The question isn't "are there good free fonts?" the question is "can > we deliver good free fonts to all users?". I'll try to help the UX team > document the answer better.
Thanks.
I may be part of the misunderstanding-of-how-things-work-in-font-land contingent. Advice/clarity appreciated.
Greg
-- | Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E | | identi.ca: @greg A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Denis Jacquerye moyogo@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe I haven't looked in the right place, but why aren’t webfonts being considered?
Webfonts would mean the same fonts can be delivered everywhere, relying on installed font only as a last resort. There are more options than just the 4 fonts mentioned (DejaVu Serif, Nimbus Roman No9 L, Linux Libertine, Liberation Sans): PT Sans/PT Serif, Droid Sans/Droid Serif and likes (Open Sans, Noto), the other Liberation fonts and likes (Arimo, Tinos), Source Sans, Roboto, Ubuntu, Clear Sans, if you just want hinted fonts and household names.
I’ll also point out that Georgia is a great font originally designed for small size, and Helvetica Neue/Helvetica/Arial was originally designed for display. When it comes to language coverage both are lacking but that cannot be fixed easily.
To add on to what Jared said...
On webfonts: it's not just that it would take "more research". We have already tried webfonts and failed miserably so far. UniversalLanguageSelector is an example of how even the most well-intentioned efforts in this area can face serious setbacks. Keep in mind also that this typography work is largely being done with volunteer or side project time from myself, the developers, and most of the designers. We are simply not prepared to implement and test a webfonts system to work at Wikipedia scale.
There are many gorgeous, well-localized free fonts out there... but few that meet our design goals are delivered universally in popular mobile and desktop operating systems. We can't get a consistent and more readable experience without delivering those as webfonts, and webfonts are not practically an option open to us right now. Maybe in the future we will get (as Jared says) a foundry to donate a custom free font for us, or maybe we'll just use a gorgeous free font out there now, like Open Baskerville or Open Sans.
For now, however, we get the following result from the Typography Refresh beta feature:
1. the vast majority of our 500 billion or more users get a more readable experience 2. we unify the typography across mobile and desktop devices, which is a good thing for both Wikimedia and third party users of Vector/MobileFrontEnd 3. individual users and individual wikis can still change their CSS as needed and desired 4. we don't jeopardize Vector and MediaWiki's status as FOSS, by not distributing nor creating a dependency on any proprietary software *whatsoever*. Thank you, CSS font-family property and fallbacks.
That all sounds like a pretty good way to maintain freedom while improving readability and consistency to me.
Ryan Kaldari, 16/02/2014 06:54:
Now that I've blamed everyone except for myself, I would like to suggest that we stop pointing fingers and get down to brass tacks.
Brad's email was a bit caustic but IMHO it wasn't pointing fingers, unlike yours (though you helpfully pointed fingers towards everyone). ;-)
My question for both the designers and the free font advocates is: Are there any free fonts that are...
- widely installed (at least on Linux systems)
- easily readable and not distractingly ugly
- would not be mapped to by the existing stack anyway (i.e. are not
simply clones or substitutes for popular commercial fonts)
I'm sorry but this question to "the free font advocates" does not make sense and I refuse to accept it, for two reasons: 1) is not a given or an immutable law of physics, it's the designers' job to assess: if you really care for a specific font you serve it; if you don't want to serve fonts, then design must adapt to availability and not the opposite; 2) is again the designers' job, I have no idea how one assesses "easily readable"* and I'd like us to banish personal opinions including adjectives like "strange" or "ugly" from any and all design decision;** moreover, if feedback had ever been desired on font choices, we would have a document explaining what this mythical "style desired by the designers" actually is, other than the superlunar ideal no human MediaWiki commentator can sense and comment.
So again, I'm waiting for documentation. Whoever refrains from publishing documentation, research, design documents etc. as soon as they are produced prevents iterations and feedback from happening and hence takes full personal responsibility of whatever outcome of the process, begging to be personally blamed.
Nemo
(*) In my very biased and personal experience of a Latin alphabet languages reader, "readable" equals "serif" so that I can tell I from l etc., and DejaVu serif is the most beautiful font ever because it covers so many characters. (**) I'm really hearing them too often. They are suppressors of discussion/rational discourse and polarise discussions unnecessarily. Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
We've been testing out Open Sans on the apps team, it's an open source font. The goals with any font choice is high quality (legible, scannable, well-kerned, etc), has wide character set, and since every font has its own personality, we want the font choice to reflect us and our content, and among that is credible, neutral, and high quality.
Not all fonts are created equal. Helvetica is very widely used not only because it's such a polished font but it was designed specifically to be the font that is neutral and to have no implied meanings like many fonts do. Sounds perfect, except for the not free part.
We're actively looking and trying out helvetica neue alternative that's open source but it's been challenging. They either don't come with enough characters, not well-kerned, or has too much personality that is not us.
I understand the preference for an open source font but we are giving up certain areas that are probably just as important as being open source like reading experience.
As for Georgia or Helvetica, serif (Georgia) fonts are recommended with larger texts because they don't reduce well on screen. Sans serif (Helvetica) fonts are recommended with smaller texts because they retain their general character shapes better than serif fonts. [1] One might argue that our web body text is not that small, hence we can use serif. There are three reasons why I wouldn't recommend that. 1. Content looks large and fine on the web but when it's displayed on phones and tablets, it's not as big anymore to use serif. 2. Why don't we use serif on web and sans serif on other platforms? Because that causes inconsistency. Readers should experience the same experience regardless of platform. WP content should be the one that takes center stage, not "why is my content appearing different on my tablet or phone?" We have fallback font options only when we must choose an alternative. 3. Helvetica has a neutral font personality. Serif, on the other hand, has many implications like traditional, Roman, formal, etc. [2,3]
We know the importance for using an open source font and we have been looking for an alternative. We also know that we care deeply for our reader's experience. Helvetica was chosen to use because it helped reflect our content type, it's high quality, has good amount of character set (and if it doesn't, it's fairly easy to find a similar-ish font to match). But I can't lie it's a beautiful font, I can assure you we didn't judge Helvetica by its cover though. ;P Hope this helps!
[1] http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2013/03/serif-vs-sans-the-final-battle/ [2] http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/81/PersonalityofFonts.asp [3] http://opusdesign.us/to-be-or-not-to-be-the-serif-question/
May
On Feb 15, 2014, at 9:07 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Frankly, I think there has been a large degree of intransigence on both sides. The free font advocates have refused to identify the fonts that they want to be considered and why they should be considered other than the fact that they are free, and the designers have refused to take any initiative on considering free fonts. The free fonts that I know have been considered are: * DejaVu Serif. Conclusion: Widely installed, but horribly ugly and looks nothing like the style desired by the designers. * Nimbus Roman No9 L. Conclusion: Basically a clone of Times. Most Linux systems map Times to Nimbus Roman No9 L, so there is no advantage to specifying "Nimbus Roman No9 L" rather than "Times" (which also maps to fonts on Windows and Mac). * Linux Libertine. Conclusion: A well-designed free font that matches the look of the Wikipedia wordmark. Unfortunately, it is not installed by default on any systems (as far as anyone knows) but is bundled with LibreOffice as an application font. If MediaWiki were using webfonts, this would likely be the serif font of choice rather than Georgia, but since we are relying on pre-installed fonts, it would be rather pointless to list it. * Liberation Sans. Conclusion: Essentially a free substitute for Arial. Like Nimbus Roman, there is no advantage to specifying "Liberation Sans" instead of "Arial" (which is at the bottom of the sans-serif stack) since Linux systems will map to Liberation Sans anyway, while other systems will apply Arial.
As to proving the quality of Georgia and Helvetica Neue, I don't think the designers have done that, but I also haven't seen any evidence from the free font advocates concerning the quality of any free fonts. So in my view, both sides of the debate have been delinquent.
Ryan Kaldari
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Greg Grossmeier greg@wikimedia.org wrote:
<quote name="Steven Walling" date="2014-02-15" time="16:08:41 -0800"> > On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Greg Grossmeier <greg@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > > <quote name="Federico Leva (Nemo)" date="2014-02-15" time="22:52:31 +0100"> > > > And surely, before WMF/"MediaWiki" tell the world that no free fonts > > > of good quality exist, there will be some document detailing exactly > > > why and based on what arguments/data/research the numerous free > > > alternatives were all rejected? Free fonts developers are an > > > invaluable resource for serving Wikimedia projects' content in all > > > languages, we shouldn't carelessly slap them in their face. > > > > I just skimmed the entire thread again, and yes, this has been requested > > a few times but no one from the WMF Design team has responded with that > > analysis (or if would respond with an analysis). The first time it was > > requested the person was told to ask the Design list, then the next > > message CC'd the design list, but no response on that point. > > > > I don't see much on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh > > nor it's talk page. Nor > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Design/Typography > > > > There wasn't an answer because the question is a fundamental > misunderstanding of the way CSS works and options that are within our > reach. The question isn't "are there good free fonts?" the question is "can > we deliver good free fonts to all users?". I'll try to help the UX team > document the answer better.
Thanks.
I may be part of the misunderstanding-of-how-things-work-in-font-land contingent. Advice/clarity appreciated.
Greg
-- | Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E | | identi.ca: @greg A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
_______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
But a problem with this approach is you're looking at best cases, not worst cases. Isn't Helvetica normally a mac thing, and optimised for the font rendering used on macs? Windows falls back to Arial, which is similar but doesn't have a lot of the optimisations and polish often people like to cite as arguments for using helvetica in the first place, but it's still reasonable. Linux falls back to whatever - nimbus or open sans if you're lucky, but if you have wine installed, and a lot of people do, windows fonts such as arial are often installed then, as well - and these tend to be far poorer than the windows versions, in some cases not supporting smoothing at all (and for wine's purposes, that's fine, but for general use, not so much.).
Narrow fonts such as helvetica also don't necessarily scale down well, either - they may be better than serifs, but get small enough (<13px) and that narrowness can take a significant toll in readability unless the system is specifically optimised to handle that. Which they generally are, if the default font is a narrow font. But what if it isn't? It isn't on most linuxes...
Not all font rendering is created equal. Font rendering on a mac is very different from font rendering on Windows Vista, which is also very different from XP or 7, which are different from Ubuntu, which is very different from default X (base graphics for any *nix), which is also quite different from the various infinality (a font rendering and optimisation package) configurations people could be using...
And systems choose their fonts according to how they render. If they can afford it, they MAKE those fonts according to how they render. But those ain't free. Why would we be supporting those who specifically tailor their own fonts to their own platforms by forcing those fonts, or similar, onto platforms where they render poorly (because they often do have them installed/mapped, even if they're really ugly versions/fallbacks), and yet where free fonts ARE well-supported?
If serving up a specific free font in line with our FOSS standards is out of the question, shouldn't we just support all our users' best cases by leaving them to their defaults? The worst cases can be quite bad.
On 17/02/14 19:49, May Tee-Galloway wrote:
We've been testing out Open Sans on the apps team, it's an open source font. The goals with any font choice is high quality (legible, scannable, well-kerned, etc), has wide character set, and since every font has its own personality, we want the font choice to reflect us and our content, and among that is credible, neutral, and high quality.
Not all fonts are created equal. Helvetica is very widely used not only because it's such a polished font but it was designed specifically to be the font that is neutral and to have no implied meanings like many fonts do. Sounds perfect, except for the not free part.
We're actively looking and trying out helvetica neue alternative that's open source but it's been challenging. They either don't come with enough characters, not well-kerned, or has too much personality that is not us.
I understand the preference for an open source font but we are giving up certain areas that are probably just as important as being open source like reading experience.
As for Georgia or Helvetica, serif (Georgia) fonts are recommended with larger texts because they don't reduce well on screen. Sans serif (Helvetica) fonts are recommended with smaller texts because they retain their general character shapes better than serif fonts. [1] One might argue that our web body text is not that small, hence we can use serif. There are three reasons why I wouldn't recommend that. 1. Content looks large and fine on the web but when it's displayed on phones and tablets, it's not as big anymore to use serif. 2. Why don't we use serif on web and sans serif on other platforms? Because that causes inconsistency. Readers should experience the same experience regardless of platform. WP content should be the one that takes center stage, not "why is my content appearing different on my tablet or phone?" We have fallback font options only when we must choose an alternative. 3. Helvetica has a neutral font personality. Serif, on the other hand, has many implications like traditional, Roman, formal, etc. [2,3]
We know the importance for using an open source font and we have been looking for an alternative. We also know that we care deeply for our reader's experience. Helvetica was chosen to use because it helped reflect our content type, it's high quality, has good amount of character set (and if it doesn't, it's fairly easy to find a similar-ish font to match). But I can't lie it's a beautiful font, I can assure you we didn't judge Helvetica by its cover though. ;P Hope this helps!
I took a closer look at Linux Libertine for possible use as a webfont for headers. Linux Libertine is a "classic" serif font that would match the character of the site (i.e. it looks "encylopedic"). It has a wide character coverage (over 2000 characters) and support for most ligatures. It even has its own bug tracker ( http://sourceforge.net/p/linuxlibertine/bugs/). It's only shortcoming is that it has an install base of pretty much no one.
Unfortunately, the WOFF file for the base font (not including bold, italic, etc.) is 516K which is way too large to use as a webfont. I imagine this is due to the font's character coverage. One option would be for us to fork Linux Libertine, reduce the character coverage (for example, it's very rare to need math and symbol glyphs in headers), and see if we can get it small enough to try delivering as a webfont. This is probably not something we could do immediately, but I think it's an idea worth looking at. Another option would be seeing if we could convince some major Linux distros to include it as a default font.
As far as it's aesthetic qualities (cover your ears, devs), it has been positively reviewed by several design sites.[1] Apparently the font designers put so much work into tweaking the kerning that it would cause some older word processors to run out of kerning memory! You can see samples of it here: http://www.linuxlibertine.org/index.php?id=86&L=1. The
[1] See sidebar at http://www.linuxlibertine.org/index.php?id=2&L=1
Ryan Kaldari
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:49 AM, May Tee-Galloway mgalloway@wikimedia.orgwrote:
We've been testing out Open Sans on the apps team, it's an open source font. The goals with any font choice is high quality (legible, scannable, well-kerned, etc), has wide character set, and since every font has its own personality, we want the font choice to reflect us and our content, and among that is credible, neutral, and high quality.
Not all fonts are created equal. Helvetica is very widely used not only because it's such a polished font but it was designed specifically to be the font that is neutral and to have no implied meanings like many fonts do. Sounds perfect, except for the not free part.
We're actively looking and trying out helvetica neue alternative that's open source but it's been challenging. They either don't come with enough characters, not well-kerned, or has too much personality that is not us.
I understand the preference for an open source font but we are giving up certain areas that are probably just as important as being open source like reading experience.
As for Georgia or Helvetica, serif (Georgia) fonts are recommended with larger texts because they don't reduce well on screen. Sans serif (Helvetica) fonts are recommended with smaller texts because they retain their general character shapes better than serif fonts. [1] One might argue that our web body text is not that small, hence we can use serif. There are three reasons why I wouldn't recommend that. 1. Content looks large and fine on the web but when it's displayed on phones and tablets, it's not as big anymore to use serif. 2. Why don't we use serif on web and sans serif on other platforms? Because that causes inconsistency. Readers should experience the same experience regardless of platform. WP content should be the one that takes center stage, not "why is my content appearing different on my tablet or phone?" We have fallback font options only when we must choose an alternative. 3. Helvetica has a neutral font personality. Serif, on the other hand, has many implications like traditional, Roman, formal, etc. [2,3]
We know the importance for using an open source font and we have been looking for an alternative. We also know that we care deeply for our reader's experience. Helvetica was chosen to use because it helped reflect our content type, it's high quality, has good amount of character set (and if it doesn't, it's fairly easy to find a similar-ish font to match). But I can't lie it's a beautiful font, I can assure you we didn't judge Helvetica by its cover though. ;P Hope this helps!
[1] http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2013/03/serif-vs-sans-the-final-battle/ [2] http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/81/PersonalityofFonts.asp [3] http://opusdesign.us/to-be-or-not-to-be-the-serif-question/
May
On Feb 15, 2014, at 9:07 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Frankly, I think there has been a large degree of intransigence on both sides. The free font advocates have refused to identify the fonts that they want to be considered and why they should be considered other than the fact that they are free, and the designers have refused to take any initiative on considering free fonts. The free fonts that I know have been considered are:
- DejaVu Serif. Conclusion: Widely installed, but horribly ugly and looks
nothing like the style desired by the designers.
- Nimbus Roman No9 L. Conclusion: Basically a clone of Times. Most Linux
systems map Times to Nimbus Roman No9 L, so there is no advantage to specifying "Nimbus Roman No9 L" rather than "Times" (which also maps to fonts on Windows and Mac).
- Linux Libertine. Conclusion: A well-designed free font that matches the
look of the Wikipedia wordmark. Unfortunately, it is not installed by default on any systems (as far as anyone knows) but is bundled with LibreOffice as an application font. If MediaWiki were using webfonts, this would likely be the serif font of choice rather than Georgia, but since we are relying on pre-installed fonts, it would be rather pointless to list it.
- Liberation Sans. Conclusion: Essentially a free substitute for Arial.
Like Nimbus Roman, there is no advantage to specifying "Liberation Sans" instead of "Arial" (which is at the bottom of the sans-serif stack) since Linux systems will map to Liberation Sans anyway, while other systems will apply Arial.
As to proving the quality of Georgia and Helvetica Neue, I don't think the designers have done that, but I also haven't seen any evidence from the free font advocates concerning the quality of any free fonts. So in my view, both sides of the debate have been delinquent.
Ryan Kaldari
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Greg Grossmeier greg@wikimedia.orgwrote:
<quote name="Steven Walling" date="2014-02-15" time="16:08:41 -0800"> > On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Greg Grossmeier <greg@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > > <quote name="Federico Leva (Nemo)" date="2014-02-15" time="22:52:31 +0100"> > > > And surely, before WMF/"MediaWiki" tell the world that no free fonts > > > of good quality exist, there will be some document detailing exactly > > > why and based on what arguments/data/research the numerous free > > > alternatives were all rejected? Free fonts developers are an > > > invaluable resource for serving Wikimedia projects' content in all > > > languages, we shouldn't carelessly slap them in their face. > > > > I just skimmed the entire thread again, and yes, this has been requested > > a few times but no one from the WMF Design team has responded with that > > analysis (or if would respond with an analysis). The first time it was > > requested the person was told to ask the Design list, then the next > > message CC'd the design list, but no response on that point. > > > > I don't see much on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh > > nor it's talk page. Nor > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Design/Typography > > > > There wasn't an answer because the question is a fundamental > misunderstanding of the way CSS works and options that are within our > reach. The question isn't "are there good free fonts?" the question is "can > we deliver good free fonts to all users?". I'll try to help the UX team > document the answer better.
Thanks.
I may be part of the misunderstanding-of-how-things-work-in-font-land contingent. Advice/clarity appreciated.
Greg
-- | Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E | | identi.ca: @greg A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
On 02/15/2014 09:07 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
Frankly, I think there has been a large degree of intransigence on both sides. The free font advocates have refused to identify the fonts that
I still miss an answer to
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/design/2013-December/001285.html
I don't want to repeat the points again, but let me summarize the root of all the arguments against the specification of proprietary fonts:
Fonts are software, fonts are creative works. As a matter of principle, Wikimedia doesn't use or promote proprietary software and proprietary creative works for our sites. There should be a very good reason to propose an exception to this principle.
Those proposing the typography change are putting a lot of effort and the best of their intentions in offering the best solution for the branches and leaves of this project. However, what is being questioned here is the root, Wikimedia selecting explicitly proprietary fonts that will become "a core visual element of Wikipedia's language." [1]
[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh#Goals
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Greg Grossmeier greg@wikimedia.org wrote:
<quote name="Federico Leva (Nemo)" date="2014-02-15" time="22:52:31 +0100"> > And surely, before WMF/"MediaWiki" tell the world that no free fonts > of good quality exist, there will be some document detailing exactly > why and based on what arguments/data/research the numerous free > alternatives were all rejected? Free fonts developers are an > invaluable resource for serving Wikimedia projects' content in all > languages, we shouldn't carelessly slap them in their face.
I just skimmed the entire thread again, and yes, this has been requested a few times but no one from the WMF Design team has responded with that analysis (or if would respond with an analysis). The first time it was requested the person was told to ask the Design list, then the next message CC'd the design list, but no response on that point.
I don't see much on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh nor it's talk page. Nor https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Design/Typography
cc'ing the Design list :)
Update on this: after discussing with Greg, Jared, etc. I've edited wikitech Deployments calendar to reflect a longer term goal of mid to late March at the earliest.
The calls from Greg, Kaldari, Nemo and others for better documentation are 100% correct, and it's something we should do before we move to merge anything from the typography refresh in to Vector proper. There's a better FAQ and more in development by the design team, but getting that out and properly translated in just a week is not realistic. Overall the continued discussion on Wikitech-l suggestions to me that doing this by the 27th would be a rush job.
Note that there was a small update to the feature on Friday, which removed the max-width restriction and tweaked some padding. I'd encourage anyone who hasn't tried the beta feature in a few weeks to give it another shot. We'll update Typography Refresh and the accompanying Talk page on mediawiki.org accordingly.
Thanks,