On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
One number covering all three.
One thing I wonder about is the difference in style score for Arimo (5) and Liberation Sans (10). Apparently the only difference between the two is the hinting.
Something this subjective could probably do with a much more diverse sample.
Do you mean a more diverse sample of fonts, a more diverse sample of text, or a more diverse sample of evaluators?
Evaluators.
You can see a sample from the technical tests in the file attached to this bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1072095
Sorry I don't have more documentation for that.
Interesting.
In some local testing, it seems that Liberation Sans (1.07.3) isn't actually being used for any of the diacritics on [[en:User:Kaldari/Font_test]]. If I change the font-family to "'Liberation Sans', 'Unicode BMP Fallback SIL', 'sans-serif'" and preview I get fallback characters on top of all the 'g's.
OTOH, Liberation Sans with DejaVu Sans as a fallback (default sans-serif on my system) does better than your screenshot. Oddly, using Arimo as a fallback doesn't work very well.
I haven't tested on different backends yet, but that's what part of what I was talking with Rob about today. Apparently the font hinting can cause significantly different rendering quality on different operating systems. Any help assessing this would be appreciated.
If you tell me what exactly you want screenshots of, I can make screenshots for all the fonts on your list except Helvetica and Helvetica Neue with Debian's font renderer, in Firefox (really Iceweasel) and Chromium.