I took a closer look at Linux Libertine for possible use as a webfont for headers. Linux Libertine is a "classic" serif font that would match the character of the site (i.e. it looks "encylopedic"). It has a wide character coverage (over 2000 characters) and support for most ligatures. It even has its own bug tracker ( http://sourceforge.net/p/linuxlibertine/bugs/). It's only shortcoming is that it has an install base of pretty much no one.
Unfortunately, the WOFF file for the base font (not including bold, italic, etc.) is 516K which is way too large to use as a webfont. I imagine this is due to the font's character coverage. One option would be for us to fork Linux Libertine, reduce the character coverage (for example, it's very rare to need math and symbol glyphs in headers), and see if we can get it small enough to try delivering as a webfont. This is probably not something we could do immediately, but I think it's an idea worth looking at. Another option would be seeing if we could convince some major Linux distros to include it as a default font.
As far as it's aesthetic qualities (cover your ears, devs), it has been positively reviewed by several design sites.[1] Apparently the font designers put so much work into tweaking the kerning that it would cause some older word processors to run out of kerning memory! You can see samples of it here: http://www.linuxlibertine.org/index.php?id=86&L=1. The
[1] See sidebar at http://www.linuxlibertine.org/index.php?id=2&L=1
Ryan Kaldari
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:49 AM, May Tee-Galloway mgalloway@wikimedia.orgwrote:
We've been testing out Open Sans on the apps team, it's an open source font. The goals with any font choice is high quality (legible, scannable, well-kerned, etc), has wide character set, and since every font has its own personality, we want the font choice to reflect us and our content, and among that is credible, neutral, and high quality.
Not all fonts are created equal. Helvetica is very widely used not only because it's such a polished font but it was designed specifically to be the font that is neutral and to have no implied meanings like many fonts do. Sounds perfect, except for the not free part.
We're actively looking and trying out helvetica neue alternative that's open source but it's been challenging. They either don't come with enough characters, not well-kerned, or has too much personality that is not us.
I understand the preference for an open source font but we are giving up certain areas that are probably just as important as being open source like reading experience.
As for Georgia or Helvetica, serif (Georgia) fonts are recommended with larger texts because they don't reduce well on screen. Sans serif (Helvetica) fonts are recommended with smaller texts because they retain their general character shapes better than serif fonts. [1] One might argue that our web body text is not that small, hence we can use serif. There are three reasons why I wouldn't recommend that. 1. Content looks large and fine on the web but when it's displayed on phones and tablets, it's not as big anymore to use serif. 2. Why don't we use serif on web and sans serif on other platforms? Because that causes inconsistency. Readers should experience the same experience regardless of platform. WP content should be the one that takes center stage, not "why is my content appearing different on my tablet or phone?" We have fallback font options only when we must choose an alternative. 3. Helvetica has a neutral font personality. Serif, on the other hand, has many implications like traditional, Roman, formal, etc. [2,3]
We know the importance for using an open source font and we have been looking for an alternative. We also know that we care deeply for our reader's experience. Helvetica was chosen to use because it helped reflect our content type, it's high quality, has good amount of character set (and if it doesn't, it's fairly easy to find a similar-ish font to match). But I can't lie it's a beautiful font, I can assure you we didn't judge Helvetica by its cover though. ;P Hope this helps!
[1] http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2013/03/serif-vs-sans-the-final-battle/ [2] http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/81/PersonalityofFonts.asp [3] http://opusdesign.us/to-be-or-not-to-be-the-serif-question/
May
On Feb 15, 2014, at 9:07 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Frankly, I think there has been a large degree of intransigence on both sides. The free font advocates have refused to identify the fonts that they want to be considered and why they should be considered other than the fact that they are free, and the designers have refused to take any initiative on considering free fonts. The free fonts that I know have been considered are:
- DejaVu Serif. Conclusion: Widely installed, but horribly ugly and looks
nothing like the style desired by the designers.
- Nimbus Roman No9 L. Conclusion: Basically a clone of Times. Most Linux
systems map Times to Nimbus Roman No9 L, so there is no advantage to specifying "Nimbus Roman No9 L" rather than "Times" (which also maps to fonts on Windows and Mac).
- Linux Libertine. Conclusion: A well-designed free font that matches the
look of the Wikipedia wordmark. Unfortunately, it is not installed by default on any systems (as far as anyone knows) but is bundled with LibreOffice as an application font. If MediaWiki were using webfonts, this would likely be the serif font of choice rather than Georgia, but since we are relying on pre-installed fonts, it would be rather pointless to list it.
- Liberation Sans. Conclusion: Essentially a free substitute for Arial.
Like Nimbus Roman, there is no advantage to specifying "Liberation Sans" instead of "Arial" (which is at the bottom of the sans-serif stack) since Linux systems will map to Liberation Sans anyway, while other systems will apply Arial.
As to proving the quality of Georgia and Helvetica Neue, I don't think the designers have done that, but I also haven't seen any evidence from the free font advocates concerning the quality of any free fonts. So in my view, both sides of the debate have been delinquent.
Ryan Kaldari
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Greg Grossmeier greg@wikimedia.orgwrote:
<quote name="Steven Walling" date="2014-02-15" time="16:08:41 -0800"> > On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Greg Grossmeier <greg@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > > <quote name="Federico Leva (Nemo)" date="2014-02-15" time="22:52:31 +0100"> > > > And surely, before WMF/"MediaWiki" tell the world that no free fonts > > > of good quality exist, there will be some document detailing exactly > > > why and based on what arguments/data/research the numerous free > > > alternatives were all rejected? Free fonts developers are an > > > invaluable resource for serving Wikimedia projects' content in all > > > languages, we shouldn't carelessly slap them in their face. > > > > I just skimmed the entire thread again, and yes, this has been requested > > a few times but no one from the WMF Design team has responded with that > > analysis (or if would respond with an analysis). The first time it was > > requested the person was told to ask the Design list, then the next > > message CC'd the design list, but no response on that point. > > > > I don't see much on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh > > nor it's talk page. Nor > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Design/Typography > > > > There wasn't an answer because the question is a fundamental > misunderstanding of the way CSS works and options that are within our > reach. The question isn't "are there good free fonts?" the question is "can > we deliver good free fonts to all users?". I'll try to help the UX team > document the answer better.
Thanks.
I may be part of the misunderstanding-of-how-things-work-in-font-land contingent. Advice/clarity appreciated.
Greg
-- | Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E | | identi.ca: @greg A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org