Matt, We have an action item to change the order from the free fonts that are visually similar to the specified non-free fonts, I don't think* that this will change the experience for user without those fonts but we'd have to do some testing, it really comes down to if we specify Helvetica Neue, and a particular system thinks that should match a different free font than the one we thought was a best match. Since we're so close to launch I'd prefer we don't make the change now, get some feedback from the current ordering, then change as needed, since that's the spirit of Beta Features. * * * * *Jared Zimmerman * \\ Director of User Experience \\ Wikimedia Foundation M : +1 415 609 4043 | : @JaredZimmerman<https://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Matthew Flaschen &lt;mflaschen(a)wikimedia.org&gt;wrote;wrote:

On 2013-10-29 1:13 PM, Steven Walling wrote: Helvetica Neue. Hence `"Helvetica Neue", "Helvetica"` will pick the best Helvetica available for the computer. Makes sense since Helvetica Neue was an iteration that was created later than Helvetica. ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/]

They are different fonts from different font families, not members of the same family, and Helvetica is far, far more common than Helvetica Neue. On Oct 29, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Steven Walling &lt;swalling(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: --- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Jared Zimmerman < jared.zimmerman(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: ? The current vector beta definition in LESS[1] is @content-font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Helvetica", "Nimbus Sans L", "Arial", "Liberation Sans", sans-serif; This seems right. I repeat, there is no benefit to putting the free names first, unless designers think they look better. Most popular Linux variants specify an equivalent FOSS font for "Helvetica" that ships with the OS for exactly this scenario, ensuring that users get a decent approximation of the proprietary font's appearance by some FOSS font. A few brave users customize the matching behavior because they prefer something else, or they read some how-to article. If we put the free names first, we just frustrate those efforts, and the experience of 90% of our users doesn't change. faidon: A font stack is inherently undefined behavior :) Yes we get somewhat unspecified behavior for a small subset of our users, but on balance it's better and more freedom-y to let them evolve a better FOSS version of the notion of "Helvetica" than nailing them to 2012's fallback "Nimbus Sans L". I don't think* that this will change the experience for user without those I don't know any free systems that specify "Helvetica Neue" equivalents as well as "Helvetica", I don't know what Android does. (Can people spend less time hypothesizing and more time reporting their /etc/fonts rules and experiences with the Vector typography refresh Beta experiment[2]?) Quim: 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. Removing them would be detrimental for most of our users. The problem with giving up and sticking to is designers can't advance the appearance of MediaWiki. We engineers engage in all this scholastic argumentation over font names, meanwhile the Vector typography refresh[2] is a big f***ing improvement to the experience of a billion MW users! I wish we had a video of Vibha Bamba's passionate defense of design from the tech days meeting. [1] http://git.wikimedia.org/blob/mediawiki%2Fcore.git/HEAD/skins%2Fvector%2Fbe… [2] http://multimedia-alpha.wmflabs.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection…, soon I hope to be more widely available. -- =S Page Features engineer

On 2013-10-29 4:07 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote: You're basically suggesting that users who have customized their browsers/OS to handle the patterns used on the majority of the internet – many who may have done a C&P from a tutorial and actually know nothing about the config itself – re-customize their browser/OS to support one website/organization. ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/]

On 10/29/2013 07:14 PM, Daniel Friesen wrote: Do you really think a significant number of users have manually customized (even by copy-and-pasting commands) the font-matching on their machine? I think that is a small minority, much less even than those who customized their browser's serif or sans-serif fonts (itself small in relative terms). Matt Flaschen

On 10/29/2013 03:30 PM, S Page wrote: 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. 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. -- Quim Gil Technical Contributor Coordinator @ Wikimedia Foundation http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Matthew Flaschen I set up http://jsfiddle.net/UPBUH/ as a quick testing ground. Nice, I tweaked it to make http://jsfiddle.net/UPBUH/7/<http://jsfiddle.net/UPBUH/6/>6/>, you can see what your browser + O.S. picks for each font name in the font stack. When I check the Fonts tab of Firefox's Web Console (not Firebug), it I get the same. FWIW Chromium does something different for me, it's matching Helvetica but not using Nimbus Sans L. something more like Liberation Sans. If it's as good or better than Helvetica Neue, I think everyone agrees the free font should come first. Yo, designers...? I think Quim goes further to argue our sans-serif font list should be "Nimbus Sans L", "Liberation Sans", sans-serif I have no idea what that font stack does on Windows/Mac/iOS/Android. It's the last thing in http://jsfiddle.net/UPBUH/7/ , can people report back? Kaldari: "Nimbus Sans L" is the files n019003l.{afm,pfb,pfm} in http://packages.ubuntu.com/saucy/all/gsfonts/download , the command to extract one file is $ dpkg --fsys-tarfile /path/to/gsfonts_blahblah.deb | tar xOf - ./usr/share/fonts/type1/gsfonts/n019003l.pfb > /tmp/NimbusSansL.pfb and I sent the files to you on a 3 1/2" floppy ☺ Cheers, -- =S Page Features engineer