On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:16 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 16 February 2014 08:54, Gerard Meijssen
Working towards a more beautiful viewing
experience is a secondary
objective. Primary is that our readers and editors can read and edit.
ULS is a huge success in doing what it was intended to do. I am afraid
we have lost sight of what our primary objective
Indeed. What precisely was the problem with ULS?
Selector has been disabled on 21-01-2014 to work out some
performance issues that had affected the Wikimedia sites." To my
understanding part of the major performance issues here related to issues
like loading the Autonym font via webfonts.
I probably should not have brought up ULS because feelings are still raw
about it and I'm not interested in rehashing its problems, but my point is
that it's an example of how delivering webfonts is not a trivial thing for
us. No one has offered to spend time on a highly performant webfonts system
that can deliver better typography reliably to all Wikimedia sites, and
we're certainly not going to officially task a team to do so when there's a
reasonable alternative that thousands of users are trying out right now in
did the designers give to non-Latin?
The beta feature has involved lots of testing in non-Latin scripts. It's
not perfect yet but we certainly haven't ignored scripts that represent so
many users. (Remember we're not talking about something actually that new.
A very similar font stack has been in use for 100% of mobile users for more
than a year.)
P.S. Sorry for answering from a different account. My work address is not
subscribed to Wikitech.