On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:19 AM, Steven Walling swalling@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
So, what would be the downside of listing a font like Arimo for sans-serif and Libertine for serif first in the stack? While not affecting the reader experience for a significant number of users, it would still be a symbolic expression of a preference for freely licensed fonts, and a conscious choice of a beautiful font for readers that have installed it.
We basically tried the equivalent of this (placing relatively free fonts unknown on most platforms first) which Kaldari talked about previously. Ultimately that kind of declaration is useless for the vast majority of users and we got very specific negative feedback about it on the Talk page. These fonts are ignored by most systems when placed first or when placed later in the stack. Systems match the first font they recognize, so using something they don't recognize or putting it later is a largely just feel-good measure.
The whole Arimo/Arial conundrum is largely a matter of the fact that Windows users simply do not have a Helvetica-like font available on most versions which is better than Arial, warts and all. Again, the best solution is to deliver a webfont, which most people with good design sense are doing these days, and we can't yet.
would you be so kind to invest a little of your precious time and make this story easy to read/digest for the many people on this list? you might add verifiable links of what you say and explain in a manner somebody normally technically gifted can follow why "we" cannot (webfonts), and why we need the change at all (i.e. who is the target), and why free fonts like ubuntu are not good enough, what you tried, the feedback on talk pages? i am already ashamed that i ask this now the second or third time ... and i still try to do it in a nice and welcoming way, not shouting or swearing ...
rupert.