The article on this blog had not much substance and quite some bogus arguments ... I felt like this was one of these "If everyone likes it, someone must critize something".
For instance: - He compares a big paragraph of text with a Sans Serif font (Droid Sans) with a Serif font (MgOpenCanonica) and comes to the result the Serif one is much more readable. a) The Serif example has much more line spacing than the Sans Serif one, making it much more readable. This comparison is unfair. b) This isn't about paragraphs full of text, this is about single words like "Menu", "Applications", "Places" etc. - Then he compares Droid Serif to MgOpenCanonica, where he favors the second one. a) subjective, personal taste?! b) Choosing a font size of at least 40pt doesn't mean anything when a GUI uses something in the range from 8 to 10. MgOpenCanonica's Serif won't survive that font size, Droid Serif's may. And from my point of view I have to ask: - Does MgOpenCanonica have a Sans and a Monospace variant like Droid? - Does MgOpenCanonica come with full suppport for Asian languages like Droid? http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/4924/ (last comment) - Does MgOpenCanonica has a glyph coverage comparable to Droid? - Does MgOpenCanonica have bytecode instructions for hinting like Droid? In my humble opinion, the author doesn't have much clue when it comes to user interface design ... I originally wrote a comment on that blog which 'surprisingly' never appeared. -- Add the droid fonts and make it the default for Kubuntu https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/311415 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to kubuntu-meta in ubuntu. -- kubuntu-bugs mailing list kubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-bugs
