On 4/8/14, S Page <spage(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Legoktm claims "There was a consensus that listing only non-free fonts was
not acceptable", that's not my recollection. Was a bug ever filed?
Kaldari valiantly tried to put non-free fonts first, that caused bug
63512. Now as I understand it, we're back to:
* Mac users get Helvetica Neue
* Windows users get Arial unless they have Helvetica Neue (unlikely) or
Helvetica (I can't reproduce bug 63662)
* Linux users get whatever F/OSS font fontconfig supplies for the
well-known string "Helvetica", I get Nimbus Sans L
* Android users ?? (Nobody responded.)
quoting Isarra Yos
Given that no objective and verifiable issues
with this were ever provided
... Why? All this effort, and for what?
BECAUSE DESIGN. (I begged and pleaded with the talented designers who work
next to me to put something emphatic in the Typography refresh FAQ.) It's a
better design. It makes MediaWiki web sites look better for millions of our
users by mentioning proprietary fonts that 90+% of them have. That's not
"objective and verifiable", it just is. Is it worth mentioning non-free
fonts? People disagree. But I'm saddened by the implicit and overt
hostility towards the art of design here ("its debatable whether this
actually represents "progress"",
How is that hostile to the "art of design". I have no problem with
what the typo refresh project set out to do. I have a problem with
what it actually did. I'm totally fine with the "art of design" as an
abstract idea and I agree with 3 of the 4 stated requirements of Typo
refresh (neutral on the consistency requirement).
"it seems like things have shifted more to
managers at WMF make the decisions", etc.).
To clarify I never said that was necessarily a bad thing. Maybe it is,
maybe it isn't. All I'm saying is that seems to be the direction we're
heading. Heck in the context I was arguing for the side of typography