I have been amazed at the passions that were stirred up when I proposed that we distribute free fonts.
There have been two types of reaction: Point to a source that has a partial solution, sometimes for money and bickering about the level of handholding that a user may need.
As there is not one golden solution, it is not simple to say spend $$ and you are ready.
It can also become part of the installation of software that goes with a DVD for of-line use. When having enough fonts is needed for the best wikipedia experience, why wouldn't we give a helping hand to our current users and help them in this way ??
Thanks, Gerard
Gerard.Meijssen wrote:
I have been amazed at the passions that were stirred up when I proposed that we distribute free fonts.
I was amazed as well. I didn't bother to look through the Credits page, but if the fonts are free as in GPL/GFDL, did anyone of the bickering crowd actually consider building TTFs from the files, upload these at wikipedia, and offering them for convenient download there, with proper credits?
We could also upload a free OGG player or the like. [[Wikipedia:Software resources]] or something.
Magnus
MM> We could also upload a free OGG player or the like. [[Wikipedia:Software MM> resources]] or something.
I don't think, we have to mirror every single GPL software. But maybe a comprehensive catalogue of free software and data (like fonts) would be a good idea.
Zinnmann wrote:
MM> We could also upload a free OGG player or the like. [[Wikipedia:Software MM> resources]] or something.
I don't think, we have to mirror every single GPL software. But maybe a comprehensive catalogue of free software and data (like fonts) would be a good idea.
It fits into the emotional state of this discussion that suddenly "a free OGG player" has become "every single GPL software"...
And no, Pablo, I wasn't saying anything about "DVDs of free operating systems" either. I was talking about a single, 1MB+ ttf file. Yeah, that would surely crush our bandwidth and disk capacity, as you more or less predicted.
If we have a free TTF file to download from the web somewhere, link's fine. If not, I see no reason *not* to upload and offer one. Sure haven't heard one in the previous postings.
Come on, where's the problem? We're offering 4-5 *GB* with pictures to download for en already. And you say we're not equipped to serve a single TTF file?
Let's all calm down a little, Magnus
Kaixo!
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 10:30:51PM +0200, Magnus Manske wrote:
If we have a free TTF file to download from the web somewhere, link's fine. If not, I see no reason *not* to upload and offer one. Sure haven't heard one in the previous postings.
Ah, that is quite a different thing.
However, it would still be better to put it somewhere else (along other fonts for example; that would reach more people)
Come on, where's the problem? We're offering 4-5 *GB* with pictures to download for en already. And you say we're not equipped to serve a single TTF file?
I had read it as if the idea was to frentically upload all kind of fonts available. Indeed one font is not very much; but the real point is that it is not the right place. The images are big, but they illustrate the articles; they are part of the information in the articles.
A font, I don't see how it could be a part of the article (a font file cannot be directly usable from the web pages; it has to be downloaded and installed first; that is different to images, sound and video that can be directly seen/heard).
A font file could be a part of the article of an article about typography or computer typography; but as it won't be directly usable from the web browser, probably it would be useless anyway.
Another thing would be a font like a tool to create the infrastructure (eg, to standardize on the typography of the logos etc); such font-as-a-tool could indeed have its place in meta:
Pablo Saratxaga wrote:
Come on, where's the problem? We're offering 4-5 *GB* with pictures to download for en already. And you say we're not equipped to serve a single TTF file?
I had read it as if the idea was to frentically upload all kind of fonts available.
No, nonono. That’s the exact case with the ogg player reaction, of course he didn’t mean to upload ALL possible GPL or PD players, only one simple one or perhaps two, that would work on most computers (Windows, OS 9, OS X, UNIX likes). I would welcome people to program teeny-tiny, simplistic, free and open source Ogg/Vorbis players -- nothing fancy, just something that does the job (this one job only).
Indeed one font is not very much; but the real point is that it is not the right place. The images are big, but they illustrate the articles; they are part of the information in the articles.
The letters that are missing — those would be the information.
A font, I don't see how it could be a part of the article (a font file cannot be directly usable from the web pages; it has to be downloaded and installed first; that is different to images, sound and video that can be directly seen/heard).
“If you cannot see some characters on this page, or see boxes or question marks instead, download and install the free fonts available [[TehFontPage|here]], or use [http://www.google.com/ Google] to look for more.”
A font file could be a part of the article of an article about typography or computer typography; but as it won't be directly usable from the web browser, probably it would be useless anyway.
Same goes for the aural content, you have to download it and listen separately. Are they too, useless?
Just some food for thought.
In internet explorer, you can force the browser to display a certain font without having it on the user's computer. It's somewhere in the HTML code, but I could never figure that part out. :(
James
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pablo Saratxaga Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 11:37 PM To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Distributing fonts
Kaixo!
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 10:30:51PM +0200, Magnus Manske wrote:
If we have a free TTF file to download from the web somewhere, link's fine. If not, I see no reason *not* to upload and offer one. Sure haven't heard one in the previous postings.
Ah, that is quite a different thing.
However, it would still be better to put it somewhere else (along other fonts for example; that would reach more people)
Come on, where's the problem? We're offering 4-5 *GB* with pictures to download for en already. And you say we're not equipped to serve a single TTF file?
I had read it as if the idea was to frentically upload all kind of fonts available. Indeed one font is not very much; but the real point is that it is not the right place. The images are big, but they illustrate the articles; they are part of the information in the articles.
A font, I don't see how it could be a part of the article (a font file cannot be directly usable from the web pages; it has to be downloaded and installed first; that is different to images, sound and video that can be directly seen/heard).
A font file could be a part of the article of an article about typography or computer typography; but as it won't be directly usable from the web browser, probably it would be useless anyway.
Another thing would be a font like a tool to create the infrastructure (eg, to standardize on the typography of the logos etc); such font-as-a-tool could indeed have its place in meta:
That's called "font embedding". I'm pretty sure it works in Firefox too.
As for the Gothic font, it probably wasn't an intentional result. At the Gothic Wikipedia, there are multiple fonts listed. to which I should eventually add MPH 2B Damase.
Mark
On 25/04/05, James R. Johnson modean52@comcast.net wrote:
In internet explorer, you can force the browser to display a certain font without having it on the user's computer. It's somewhere in the HTML code, but I could never figure that part out. :(
James
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pablo Saratxaga Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 11:37 PM To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Distributing fonts
Kaixo!
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 10:30:51PM +0200, Magnus Manske wrote:
If we have a free TTF file to download from the web somewhere, link's fine. If not, I see no reason *not* to upload and offer one. Sure haven't heard one in the previous postings.
Ah, that is quite a different thing.
However, it would still be better to put it somewhere else (along other fonts for example; that would reach more people)
Come on, where's the problem? We're offering 4-5 *GB* with pictures to download for en already. And you say we're not equipped to serve a single TTF file?
I had read it as if the idea was to frentically upload all kind of fonts available. Indeed one font is not very much; but the real point is that it is not the right place. The images are big, but they illustrate the articles; they are part of the information in the articles.
A font, I don't see how it could be a part of the article (a font file cannot be directly usable from the web pages; it has to be downloaded and installed first; that is different to images, sound and video that can be directly seen/heard).
A font file could be a part of the article of an article about typography or computer typography; but as it won't be directly usable from the web browser, probably it would be useless anyway.
Another thing would be a font like a tool to create the infrastructure (eg, to standardize on the typography of the logos etc); such font-as-a-tool could indeed have its place in meta:
-- Ki ça vos våye bén, Pablo Saratxaga
http://chanae.walon.org/pablo/ PGP Key available, key ID: 0xD9B85466 [you can write me in Walloon, Spanish, French, English, Catalan or Esperanto] [min povas skribi en valona, esperanta, angla aux latinidaj lingvoj]
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Maybe if the wikipedia were to offer the fonts necessary for the wikipedia to display properly, then that would solve the problem. That would be much easier, especially on certain files (Gothic language) that require a font, but each time I downloaded that font, it crashed my system. With the wiki community, I'd more likely trust the resulting stored font to not crash my computer. But becoming a font repository is beside the point of the wiki.
James
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pablo Saratxaga Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 11:37 PM To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Distributing fonts
Kaixo!
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 10:30:51PM +0200, Magnus Manske wrote:
If we have a free TTF file to download from the web somewhere, link's fine. If not, I see no reason *not* to upload and offer one. Sure haven't heard one in the previous postings.
Ah, that is quite a different thing.
However, it would still be better to put it somewhere else (along other fonts for example; that would reach more people)
Come on, where's the problem? We're offering 4-5 *GB* with pictures to download for en already. And you say we're not equipped to serve a single TTF file?
I had read it as if the idea was to frentically upload all kind of fonts available. Indeed one font is not very much; but the real point is that it is not the right place. The images are big, but they illustrate the articles; they are part of the information in the articles.
A font, I don't see how it could be a part of the article (a font file cannot be directly usable from the web pages; it has to be downloaded and installed first; that is different to images, sound and video that can be directly seen/heard).
A font file could be a part of the article of an article about typography or computer typography; but as it won't be directly usable from the web browser, probably it would be useless anyway.
Another thing would be a font like a tool to create the infrastructure (eg, to standardize on the typography of the logos etc); such font-as-a-tool could indeed have its place in meta:
I don't think, we have to mirror every single GPL software. But maybe a comprehensive catalogue of free software and data (like fonts) would be a good idea.
MM> It fits into the emotional state of this discussion that suddenly "a MM> free OGG player" has become "every single GPL software"...
Sorry, Magnus, my comment wasn't meant to be offensive. I apologize if it sounds like that.
No, it's just, that IMHO theres no need to distribute software as there enough download location. Of course a small Ogg-Player wouldn't harm our bandwith, but it might be a signal into a different diretion. Knowledge is our domain. And in my opinion we should stick to that. It's absolutely ok, to guide people to the (GPL) software they need. But we dont't have to offer it ourself.
Zinnmann wrote:
I don't think, we have to mirror every single GPL software. But maybe a comprehensive catalogue of free software and data (like fonts) would be a good idea.
MM> It fits into the emotional state of this discussion that suddenly "a MM> free OGG player" has become "every single GPL software"...
Sorry, Magnus, my comment wasn't meant to be offensive. I apologize if it sounds like that.
No, it's just, that IMHO theres no need to distribute software as there enough download location. Of course a small Ogg-Player wouldn't harm our bandwith, but it might be a signal into a different diretion. Knowledge is our domain. And in my opinion we should stick to that. It's absolutely ok, to guide people to the (GPL) software they need. But we dont't have to offer it ourself.
I see merit in both positions. By taking a stand for OGG over MP3, we are inconveniencing people in the name of free content. We have an obligation to minimize that inconvenience, and this might be in part be resolved by hosting some GPL software and very user-friendly instructions for installing it. We can decide on a case by case basis.
A lot of GPL software is hosted on nerdy websites that would simply frighten inexperienced users. When that's the case, it would be nice if we used our public communication skills to help out.
--Jimbo
I think everyone agrees we should have a page of "this site best viewed with the following tools/software: " followed by a list of fonts, browsers, media players. Then we could link to a page of Known Issues with other tools, so interested readers could decide how important it is to install something new.
We should start with this page, before deciding on the minor issue of whether to host the files ourselves...
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 10:47:19 -0700, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
A lot of GPL software is hosted on nerdy websites that would simply frighten inexperienced users. When that's the case, it would be nice if we used our public communication skills to help out.
This is very true. If we can link directly to another site's download page, or to a specific file, from our list -- and if that site is fast enough to be pleasant to download from -- let's do that. If not, we might mirror the download ourselves.
Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com writes:
I think everyone agrees we should have a page of "this site best viewed with the following tools/software: " followed by a list of fonts, browsers, media players.
You may think this way, but everyone does not agree to your opinion. It was already said that it is important to tell the user that the site follows standards by W3C (XML, XHTML, CSS, PNG, more?), ISO (ISO 639, more?), and more(?).
This was already explained by somebody else. Please, pay attention, especially if you make statements as above ("I think everyone agrees...").
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 10:47:19 -0700, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I see merit in both positions. By taking a stand for OGG over MP3, we are inconveniencing people in the name of free content. We have an obligation to minimize that inconvenience, and this might be in part be resolved by hosting some GPL software and very user-friendly instructions for installing it. We can decide on a case by case basis.
A lot of GPL software is hosted on nerdy websites that would simply frighten inexperienced users. When that's the case, it would be nice if we used our public communication skills to help out.
This is one of the things I was trying to work on with the ideas I was putting on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multimedia I'm going to have a go at drafting my suggested Help: page now, complete with the links to various means of listening to ogg vorbis files. (And now I think, perhaps some instructions, too) Note that most of these are plugins for whatever media player you already have, not a whole new piece of software.
But perhaps it *would* be nice to have a "wiki-player" that just read in an ogg, and played it, and nothing else, for people who don't have a media player at all. It could actually be considered, in a vague kind of way, to be part of the site software: if playing oggs is part of using the wiki, then an ogg player is part of the interface.
Of course, what would be *really* nice, would be if we could *embed* the player, but that might be a bit awkward.
On 6 Oct 2004, at 16:27, Rowan Collins wrote:
But perhaps it *would* be nice to have a "wiki-player" that just read in an ogg, and played it, and nothing else, for people who don't have a media player at all. It could actually be considered, in a vague kind of way, to be part of the site software: if playing oggs is part of using the wiki, then an ogg player is part of the interface.
Of course, what would be *really* nice, would be if we could *embed* the player, but that might be a bit awkward.
Hmm... Java applet?
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:59:03 +0200, Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote:
Of course, what would be *really* nice, would be if we could *embed* the player, but that might be a bit awkward.
Hmm... Java applet?
Well, that requires the user to have a Java VM. Which is arguably no more/less of an imposition than standardising on embedding RealPlayer, or QuickTime, or a Flash gadget, or...
Not that means it's not the way to go, but the awkwardness comes of having to deal with what people will and won't have, how to instruct them to get it, whether to have it as a preference only, off by default. Those are all true of any embedding system, be it Java, an existing media player, or a home-made construction that people can install for this and only this use.
I note that there is a Java Ogg implementation out there though - I added to the list on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multimedia/Help:Listening_to_sounds
Kaixo!
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 09:16:07PM +0200, Magnus Manske wrote:
but if the fonts are free as in GPL/GFDL, did anyone of the bickering crowd actually consider building TTFs from the files, upload these at wikipedia, and offering them for convenient download there, with proper credits?
It's just that it isn't the goal of wikipedia to be a font distributor (nor a software distributor, etc). Having a page on meta namespace referencing places where to get fonts for a given script is ok; but actually hosting the files on wikipedia I don't see the point (and wikimedia software isn't designed to be an optimal solution for file serving either)
We could also upload a free OGG player or the like. [[Wikipedia:Software resources]] or something.
Distributing software is an even worst idea imho.
What next, upload CDROM/DVD images of free operating systems?
All that can be easily downloaded from the right place, from places that aim to be repositories of free software/free fonts. Using wikipedia servers for that will be a waste of bandwidth and server resources, diverted from their goal of serving encyclopedic pages.
Having a list of links from where to get those files/programs may be a good idea; but actually hosting them is not.
Hi,
Le Friday 13 August 2004 21:16, Magnus Manske a écrit :
Gerard.Meijssen wrote:
I have been amazed at the passions that were stirred up when I proposed that we distribute free fonts.
I was amazed as well. I didn't bother to look through the Credits page, but if the fonts are free as in GPL/GFDL, did anyone of the bickering crowd actually consider building TTFs from the files, upload these at wikipedia, and offering them for convenient download there, with proper credits?
We could also upload a free OGG player or the like. [[Wikipedia:Software resources]] or something.
Magnus
I was not asked to give my opinion, still here it is. ;o)
I think it's a nice idea to provide tools necessary to read and listen to Wikipedia (free fonts and an OGG player). It doesn't harm anyone but it could help many.
Yann
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org