On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
So, the font stack changes with regards to the status quo now change nothing for Windows users, changes Helvetica -> Helvetica neue for Mac users and changes Arial, DejaVu Sans or Arimo for possibly something
else,
amongst which Nimbus Sans L, maybe, maybe not.
Actually, it's a bit more complicated. All users get serif fonts for headings, which they didn't before and which is probably the biggest visual before/after difference. The serif fonts still prioritize free/libre fonts over non-free ones.
The body fonts prioritized free/libre fonts on deployments, but for Windows users without ClearType/anti-aliasing, those render very poorly, so they were disabled shortly after deployment. This is now causing people to be upset because the initial agreement to never prioritize non-free fonts is no longer maintained for the body.
Odder's patch would revert to sans-serif as a generic classification for the body, but doesn't touch the font specification for the headers (yet). The commit summary is a bit misleading in that regard.
Yes, I should have made that clear: I do very much support the Odder patch[1] ( https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/124475/ ) that reverts body to sans serif and keeps @content-heading-font-family: "Linux Libertine", Georgia, Times, serif;
That is not the status quo, but the diff between the Odder patch and the typography refresh basically is the "Set a non-free font stack to give Mac now Helvetica Neue rather than Helvetica", with a -2 is planted in the ground before as a demarcation line. That's the point that I don't think is worth having a non-free font-stack for, and that I certainly think standing your ground for the brave new world of typography refresh is constructive for.
[1]My only nitpick about it is that I'm wondering what Times is doing in that stack. I can't think of any situation where a user wouldn't have Linux Libertine or Georgia, but does have Times, yet doesn't have it as its default serif font. When one has specifically set a default serif different from Times, you probably have a good reason for it - or at least a better reason than the websites desire for Times, and we should respect that. Yet this beef is very small compared to all other issues in this thread.
There's some additional discussion about Georgia as a font choice due to its use of text figures (AKA old-style numerals), which some people find look odd in headings with numbers, especially in non-Latin scripts where old-style numerals may not be commonly encountered. Due to this, some are arguing for also changing the style for headings to serif (_not_ sans-serif) as a generic classification, or removing Georgia from the stack. That particular issue hasn't been discussed in detail yet, as far as I can see.
I think the differences of opinion here are not worth a holy war. Prioritizing a non-free font before free ones for the _body_ with a clear FIXME indicating that this is not a desirable state is IMO only marginally different from reverting to sans-serif until we have a free/libre font that _can_ be prioritized for the body. So I think either outcome should be OK for the short term, and we should focus on the longer term question of a good font stack for the body that prioritizes free/libre fonts.
Let's not polarize each other too much. All the arguments I've heard have been fundamentally reasonable and rational, not just "Change is evil". Some people hate the serifs per se, but that's a smaller discussion compared to these conversations, which are about substantial things that can be reasoned about.
Erik
Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l