On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Rob Lanphier <robla(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
tl;dr: His stack still lists HelveticaNeue as the
first font, but proposes
Arimo as a web font which may well look better on MS Windows. Arimo ships
So, what would be the downside of listing a font like Arimo for
sans-serif and Libertine for serif first in the stack? While not
affecting the reader experience for a significant number of users, it
would still be a symbolic expression of a preference for freely
licensed fonts, and a conscious choice of a beautiful font for readers
that have installed it.
There may be practical and aesthetic arguments against these or other
specific free fonts; if so, it would be good to hear those arguments
spelled out. I do agree that if "Helvetica Neue" is only installed on
Macs and costs $30 for everyone, it's a pretty idiosyncratic choice as
a primary font to specify. :-) Surely if the font requires downloading
on the majority of platforms anyway, we may as well specify a free one
before the non-free one.
As for webfonts, given the ULS experience I'd be very leery of the
performance impact, both in terms of delivering the font and any
unintended re-rendering flashes.
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation