On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Derk-Jan Hartman < d.j.hartman+wmf_ml@gmail.com> wrote:
There is one area where ULS made true mistakes and that is thinking that it can always do better than the operating system/user. And that is the same risk that this exercise is running into. Thinking that we can define fonts in a way that is 'better' than the OS can do it. And though that is a lofty goal and in some specific cases/browsers is probably achievable, it also introduces a lot of potential risks.
In this regard we are something of an odd duck though, which should be a red flag. The vast majority of well-designed and highly usable sites, large and small, do 'declare fonts in a way that is "better" than the OS can do it.' Even an *exceptionally* plain product like Gmail has a more specific font family setting than Vector does at the moment.
Which is not to deny that there are no risks. It's to say that, with elbow grease and attention to the cases you talk about below (IPA, different scripts, etc.) we can actually have a setting that is better for most users on most platforms. Sacrificing the readability and beauty of content for most users because there is no universally perfect solution is the kind of hard-line approach that limits the reach of FOSS, and ultimately undermines our goal of making something the entire world can use and enjoy.