On Mar 7, 2014 2:12 AM, Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 03/06/2014 12:21 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
On 03/05/2014 02:00 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
What do people think of the following stack:
Arimo, Liberation Sans, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;
it would be useful to
Thank you for the people that has already filled data and improved the page!
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh/Font_choice/Test
On 03/07/2014 12:39 AM, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
In the mobile browsers I'm missing chrome for Android. Is that getting
reported with something else?
Ryan, *thank you* very much for the research, and for contacting the
Liberation Sans maintainers with specific bugs.
On 03/05/2014 02:00 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
What do people think of the following stack:
Arimo, Liberation Sans, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;
After so much
On 6 March 2014 20:21, Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Ryan, *thank you* very much for the research, and for contacting the
Liberation Sans maintainers with specific bugs.
Seconded! Arguing is one thing - bothering to go out and finding out
what people actually think is quite another.
On 03/06/2014 12:21 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
On 03/05/2014 02:00 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
What do people think of the following stack:
Arimo, Liberation Sans, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;
it would be useful to have a table showing
which fonts are rendered by the most popular
Just heard back from the font people at RedHat. They confirmed that
Liberation Sans is missing some needed data in its glyph positioning (GPOS)
table. You can read more about GPOS tables here:
http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/opentype/index_table_formats2.html.
They say they are going to
Hoi,
Given that you only researched Latin fonts, did you consider the coverage
of these fonts for languages? Not all fonts are created equal, they often
do not necessarily cover all the characters that are needed for specific
languages.
Consequently, you cannot apply your work to other languages
I spent most of Friday working on font evaluation with the designers. First
I presented them with a blind taste test of 10 potential body fonts. 7 of
them were FOSS fonts, 3 were commercial. Each one was used to render an
identical section of Lorem Ipsum text in a MedaWiki page. Each font was
Thanks for doing this research!
I notice that while Liberation Sans got a high score for appearance, it got
a very low technical score... Since it is a FOSS project
https://fedorahosted.org/liberation-fonts/ we should attempt to file bug
reports with Red Hat about any problems we discover,
Ryan,
This is useful. Am I assuming accurately that you looked only at Latin
language fonts focused on English. Did you consider Google webfonts too.
I would be interested in reusing your test criteria for other language
fonts too. Thanks for your efforts so far.
Best
Alolita
On Mar 3, 2014
Brion,
Happy to ping the Fedora team on this bug. They participate in our Language
Summits which we organize with Red Hat India.
Best,
Alolita
On Mar 3, 2014 12:22 PM, Brion Vibber bvib...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Thanks for doing this research!
I notice that while Liberation Sans got a high
Ryan, thank you superlatively for doing and documenting this research.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Yes, we only looked at Latin fonts. We are working on an FAQ, however, that
explains how wikis that use non-Latin scripts can specify their own font
stack using MediaWiki:Vector.css.
Ryan Kaldari
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Alolita Sharma asha...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Ryan,
This is
Am 03.03.2014 21:38, schrieb Sumana Harihareswara:
Ryan, thank you superlatively for doing and documenting this research.
+1
-- daniel
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Thanks for the update Ryan and for investing your effort in this
considering the typography refresh it is a spare time project! I'm
excited to see the results.
What about headings? Are you going to run similar tests?
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I spent most of Friday working on font evaluation with the designers.
[...]
given a style score based on readability, neutrality, and authority
(does the font look like it conveys reliable information).
What does
Hi everyone,
I wanted to give everyone an update from an in-person conversation I had
with Ryan (see...see...I do talk to people in person!) :-) Ryan and crew,
I'm really glad you all are following through with documentation and doing
all of the testing you are. Thank you!
If we're going to
On Mar 3, 2014 4:58 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Yes, we only looked at Latin fonts. We are working on an FAQ, however,
that
explains how wikis that use non-Latin scripts can specify their own font
stack using MediaWiki:Vector.css.
Ryan Kaldari
I dont think users should
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 3, 2014 4:58 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Yes, we only looked at Latin fonts. We are working on an FAQ, however,
that
explains how wikis that use non-Latin scripts can specify their own font
Also with LESS we would be able to substitute the font variables on a
per language basis with a little tweaking. This is pretty trivial to
do and I'd suggest a reactionary approach.
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Brian
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
bjor...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
What does neutrality mean in the context of a font?
I'm sure the designers could give a better explanation, but basically it
means that the font doesn't have any noticeable tone, i.e. it isn't
whimsical, cool,
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
bjor...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
What does neutrality mean in the context of a font?
I'm having trouble figuring out what authority might actually mean
besides Does this seem familiar to me from sites I use for reference?.
These are not terms
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
One number covering all three.
One thing I wonder about is the difference in style score for Arimo (5) and
Liberation Sans (10). Apparently the only difference between the two is the
hinting.
Something this subjective
There are two very different versions of Liberation Sans, which makes
testing somewhat complicated. Liberation Sans 1.0 has bad kerning and
little support for extended Unicode. Liberation Sans 2.0 has great kerning
and implements support for a lot more glyphs, but not always correctly. The
version
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
That's not quite accurate. The new font stack is based on feedback from
Linux users who preferred that we take advantage of the font-mapping built
into Linux rather than trying to guess arbitrary fonts that may or may
Brad since you work for the for the foundation and seem to have a lot of
expertise in this area and seem to have been one of the more vocal
supporters of free fonts have you reached out to your work colleagues over
video conferencing or similar to understand the problems being hit and
helped them
On 16 February 2014 18:04, Jon Robson jdlrob...@gmail.com wrote:
On a side note software is never final. It is not like we are transitioning
from a free font to a non free font.
There's been a serious camel's-nose effect of late, with Foundation
developers *really heavily* pushing non-free
On Feb 16, 2014 2:04 PM, Jon Robson jdlrob...@gmail.com wrote:
Brad since you work for the for the foundation and seem to have a lot of
expertise in this area and seem to have been one of the more vocal
supporters of free fonts have you reached out to your work colleagues over
video
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
I've seen setiment like this (discuss in person, in hangout, or otherwise
privately) pop up recently (e.g on [1]). I think attitudes like that are a
real problem. Supposedly we are an open community. People should be
On 16 February 2014 22:28, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
or David's suspicions about a growing trend of
preferring non-free software :P
No, I'm not in fact joking.
- d.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On 16 February 2014 23:16, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 February 2014 22:28, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
or David's suspicions about a growing trend of
preferring non-free software :P
No, I'm not in fact joking.
I'm not sure it's so much preferring as not
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Prioritizing freely licensed fonts while also explicitly naming the
preferred non-free fonts seems like an easy fix.
I'm sad to see that they decided to go in the entirely opposite direction,
removing all mention of free
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
I'm sad to see that they decided to go in the entirely opposite direction,
removing all mention of free fonts entirely in their font stack,[1] and are
planning on forcing the non-free fonts on all Vector users
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
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
On 2013-10-27 8:04 PM, Isarra Yos wrote:
I found this to be a good part why arial was so damn unreadable on my
linux setup, for instance, though even with it rendering properly now
it's still narrower than I find comfortable as well. Perhaps this is
just because I'm used to wider, but going
On 10/27/2013 03:37 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
Many FOSS communities have dealt with the trade off between great-looking
fonts and freedom by commissioning foundries to get their own free fonts.
See also: Ubuntu, Android, and more. I've talked to the design team about
this idea, including perhaps
On 10/28/2013 07:43 AM, Liangent wrote:
btw. Be aware of internationalization issues: not to say that fonts are
usually tied to a (group of) alphabets. Even digits can be affected by the
language info of the context they live.
See [1]: this is the standard English Wikipedia signup screen, and
As one that started of participated in this discussion in many back
corners...
On 10/27/2013 09:50 AM, Chad wrote:
Our ideologies are far more important than typography.
We bet on free licenses for all the content and software we produce,
even if sometimes potentially superior free as in
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 01:32:30PM +1100, Tim Starling wrote:
Yes, we should prefer to use free software. We should also strive to
ensure that our support for users on non-free platforms is optimal, as
long as that doesn't negatively impact on users of free platforms. So
I don't think it is a
There are other considerations. For instance, default fonts usually have
been chosen to provide the maximum amount of glyphs of all the fonts.
Making changes here can have unintended consequences with either missing
glyphs (mostly on Windows), or inconsistent rendering of words due to font
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Faidon Liambotis fai...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 01:32:30PM +1100, Tim Starling wrote:
Yes, we should prefer to use free software. We should also strive to
ensure that our support for users on non-free platforms is optimal, as
long as that
btw. Be aware of internationalization issues: not to say that fonts are
usually tied to a (group of) alphabets. Even digits can be affected by the
language info of the context they live.
See [1]: this is the standard English Wikipedia signup screen, and [2]:
with ?uselang=zh-cn added.
[1]
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Steven Walling
steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 4:23 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Steven Walling wrote:
You're leaving out two key facts here:
1. The 'VectorBeta' change is to create an _opt-in_ beta for typography
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:12 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
bjor...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Where I come from, beta does mean this is the direction we're
intending to go in, subject to testing and feedback before it's made
an official release.
That's right. There are two questions here:
- Do these
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 02:56:42PM -0700, S Page wrote:
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Prioritizing freely licensed fonts while also explicitly naming the
preferred non-free fonts seems like an easy fix.
Again, this is already done for us by
On 27-10-2013 02:19, Brandon Harris wrote:
rgree++
While I see the value in specifying font stacks that are arguably “prettier”
I also don’t think it’s worth giving up our principles for it.
sarcasm If that principle means that we try to avoid anything
non-free, then we should simply block
On 27 October 2013 10:14, Erwin Dokter er...@darcoury.nl wrote:
The last thing I want to see is a message box stating To see this site as
intended, DOWNLOAD THIS FREE FONT FIRST. Even though I already have a
truckload of free fonts installed, I prefer to use the system's fonts simply
because
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
I came across Gerrit change 79948[1] today, which makes VectorBeta
use a pile of non-free fonts (with one free font thrown in at the end
as a sop). Is this really the direction we want to go, considering
that
On 27 October 2013 19:37, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
We have never and will never ship a proprietary font to users who do not
have one installed, and I think we should maybe make that an official
policy if it isn't already. However, specifying better font families for
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.comwrote:
1. The 'VectorBeta' change is to create an _opt-in_ beta for typography
changes, as part of the release of BetaFeatures extension. We'd only be
providing something to users who want to try this font stack.
On 2013-10-27 12:37 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
Many FOSS communities have dealt with the trade off between
great-looking fonts and freedom by commissioning foundries to get
their own free fonts. See also: Ubuntu, Android, and more. I've talked
to the design team about this idea, including
On 27 October 2013 19:47, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 12:44 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
OK ... and the tradeoff of the designer assuming the non-free font,
and it just happening to look like garbage with any free font?
David, you
Saying that the people who picked the font stack should be able to defend
their selection of font stack and their ability to design for all customers
with it isn't avoiding the question; it's sending the question to the ONLY
people who can sensibly answer it.
Keep in mind that a) the design team
On 27-10-2013 20:37, Steven Walling wrote:
Many FOSS communities have dealt with the trade off between great-looking
fonts and freedom by commissioning foundries to get their own free fonts.
See also: Ubuntu, Android, and more. I've talked to the design team about
this idea, including perhaps
Steven Walling wrote:
You're leaving out two key facts here:
1. The 'VectorBeta' change is to create an _opt-in_ beta for typography
changes, as part of the release of BetaFeatures extension. We'd only be
providing something to users who want to try this font stack. It's a
choice they
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 4:23 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Steven Walling wrote:
You're leaving out two key facts here:
1. The 'VectorBeta' change is to create an _opt-in_ beta for typography
changes, as part of the release of BetaFeatures extension. We'd only be
Sorry if you don't like MobileFrontend's design, but it's clearly not an
opinion universally shared among readers and editors on the mobile version
of Wikimedia projects. It's nearing 20% of our overall traffic every
month,
and growing like weeds.[1] Thousands of people a month are editing
On 27/10/13 03:43, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote:
I came across Gerrit change 79948[1] today, which makes VectorBeta
use a pile of non-free fonts (with one free font thrown in at the end
as a sop). Is this really the direction we want to go, considering
that in many other areas we prefer to use
On 28/10/13 02:32, Tim Starling wrote:
There is the separate issue that on my Linux laptop, Nimbus Sans L
looks worse than the font my browser will choose for sans-serif. That
is because I have customised Firefox to use the Ubuntu font for
sans-serif, which is very readable. I find all the Arial
I came across Gerrit change 79948[1] today, which makes VectorBeta
use a pile of non-free fonts (with one free font thrown in at the end
as a sop). Is this really the direction we want to go, considering
that in many other areas we prefer to use free software whenever we
can?
Looking around a
Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote:
I came across Gerrit change 79948 today, which makes VectorBeta use a
pile of non-free fonts (with one free font thrown in at the end as a
sop). Is this really the direction we want to go, considering that in
many other areas we prefer to use free software whenever we
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:52 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
While this is a technical mailing list, this is a
topic dealing with legal issues.
This doesn't have any legal issues as far as I know, since we're not
distributing any fonts in this context. It's just a matter of whether
we
Thanks for making us aware of this, Brad. I've immediately removed an
unneeded use in Translate and removed that entry from the list.
One instance remains in the header monospace hack, could probably be
changed to monospace, monospace. Can you please elaborate?
Cheers!
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at
Le 26/10/13 20:00, Siebrand Mazeland (WMF) a écrit :
One instance remains in the header monospace hack, could probably be
changed to monospace, monospace. Can you please elaborate?
Have a look at docs/uidesign/monospace.html which exposes the monospace
issue.
If you add another font after
So I'll just make a few brief, general points:
* It might be nice for the design folks to weigh in here with their
thoughts on font selection.
* We traditionally didn't specify a lot of fonts at all, meaning you got
whatever default fonts were configured on your system: thus, non-free fonts
like
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Erwin Dokter er...@darcoury.nl wrote:
This is completly a non-issue. CSS Font stacks merely *refer* to a font
already installed (and paid for) on a reader's computer. There are no legal
issues arising form this whatsoever.
You missed the point. The issue is
On Oct 26, 2013, at 2:31 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
That said,
my personal preference would be for us to keep our font neutrality and not
declare anything other than 'serif' and 'sans-serif', but I'm open to
listening to other people's arguments.
rgree++
On Oct 27, 2013 4:19 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote:
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:52 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
There's an open question in my mind as to what constitutes a non-free
font,
In this context, I mean non-free in the context of
69 matches
Mail list logo
