On 11/04/14 18:42, Bartosz Dziewoński wrote:
I have merged the Gerrit change
(https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/124475/),
restoring the body font to sans-serif. The heading font is unchanged
for now.
I've read the entire wikitech-l thread (89 emails as of writing) and
pondered this
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
I would add as an issue, that there are major variance in the font
selection based on platform and configuration. For some platforms, the
typo refresh chooses a font that is significantly lower quality than
the browser
On 11-04-2014 04:35, Steven Walling wrote:
How are these specific, replicable bugs? DJ is saying things the current
solution is not working and we cannot do better but there is no
evidence about why this is the case for such a large number of users that
it requires a revert back to plain
I keep hearing about ALLL THE BUGS but I've not seen anything on
Bugzilla. This leads me to believe I've not been cc'ed on them or they
haven't been raised (which would be bad). Please can someone raise
these on Bugzilla - if these are being raised on wikis they are not
getting in front of people.
On 11-04-2014 13:11, Erwin Dokter wrote:
[1] shows half the world complaining about the typography refresh.
I forgot to include the URL:
[1]
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Typography_refresh#Languages_problems
Regards,
--
Erwin Dokter
___
On 11-04-2014 18:42, Jon Robson wrote:
I keep hearing about ALLL THE BUGS but I've not seen anything on
Bugzilla.
That's because you don't *want* to see... Most of the reports on [1] are
from readers who don't know anything about Bugzilla. That doesn't make
that anything less valid.
Since
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Erwin Dokter er...@darcoury.nl wrote:
I forgot to include the URL:
[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Typography_refresh#
Languages_problems
Out of all of these, the most clear is that serifs are not great for the
headings in CJK (Chinese, Japanese,
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Erwin Dokter er...@darcoury.nl wrote:
There is also a tracking bug [2] with plenty bugs attached, among the [3],
[4] and [5]; *all* language related. Buth the bug reports and Typography
talk page have plenty of screenshots.
[1]
Since that page was linked as the primary feedback page when the refresh
was
announced, it should be the first place to check for error reports.
Claiming
non-existence of Bugzilla reports is just plain selective ignorance.
I disagree. Bugzilla is where we report bugs. If no one raises bugs as
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Brian Cox
nativeforeignerw...@gmail.comwrote:
Perhaps all the user reported bugs should be added to Bugzilla for tracking
purposes. But it's not reasonable to expect the average user to report them
there.
Brian/NF
Yes I think we definitely need to track
I have merged the Gerrit change (https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/124475/),
restoring the body font to sans-serif. The heading font is unchanged for now.
I've read the entire wikitech-l thread (89 emails as of writing) and
pondered this carefully. My summary of the situation is:
* This font
On Fri, 2014-04-11 at 09:42 -0700, Jon Robson wrote:
I keep hearing about ALLL THE BUGS but I've not seen anything on
Bugzilla.
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=63549 dependency list
plus likely stuff on
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Typography_refresh that I'd expect
the
On 11-04-2014 20:00, Jon Robson wrote:
Please don't accuse me of things that are not true. I do want to see
these things, but I have to manage 1) mailing lists 2) bugzilla 3)
wiki pages (which i have to know exist). I am only human. Thanks for
the links to bugs I've cc'ed myself on all of
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Bartosz Dziewoński matma@gmail.comwrote:
I have merged the Gerrit change (https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/
r/#/c/124475/),
restoring the body font to sans-serif. The heading font is unchanged for
now.
I've read the entire wikitech-l thread (89 emails as of
It looks like Nemo has been doing this (thanks a bunch Nemo) but I
wasn't cc'ed on any of these reports so I was getting just as
frustrated as you thinking we were inside a black hole :)
I don't expect the average user to raise bugs.
This would be a great thing to discuss in the retrospective -
I echo Brian's assessment here. Screen readers don't care about fonts.
They only look at what the semantic elements tell you.
DJ
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
And has any testing been done with screen readers and dyslexia readers to
I would be
My sentiment here is that all of this has supported every latent
opinion that I had about the project when it was started. Years of
maintaining templates, CSS and Javascript on English Wikipedia had
taught me not to mess with fonts unless it was very targeted
(preferring a specific font for a
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Derk-Jan Hartman
d.j.hartman+wmf...@gmail.com wrote:
So for me, the question is not how can we apply pretty serif fonts to
headers, the question is what can we do short term and long term to
make that happen.
It would be good if we could focus the conversation
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
(snip)
My understanding is that there are three separate major issues:
* serif may not be a good choice for certain languages
* The explicitly specified sans-serif stack needs to be further
optimized
* some people
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
(snip)
My understanding is that there are three separate major issues:
* serif may not be a good choice for certain languages
* The explicitly
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:44 PM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote:
Given that you do have statistics, how did all the huha around the ULS
performance issue and now all this hit the use of the functionality for
dyslexic people?
I'm not sure what statistics you're referring to.
On Thursday, April 10, 2014, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com
wrote:
I definitely agree with Erik's summation, but I would not like to open up
discussion about Wikimedia-specific consideration vs. core, which is a
broader question about what Vector should be/do that I don't think
On 10 April 2014 22:16, Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Our 3rd party MediaWiki users (the sysadmins and their users) should not be
affected by the unstable situation around font styles. If we are going to
change their defaults, we should better do it when we are certain about the
On 4/10/14, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Derk-Jan Hartman
d.j.hartman+wmf...@gmail.com wrote:
So for me, the question is not how can we apply pretty serif fonts to
headers, the question is what can we do short term and long term to
make that happen.
Erik Moeller wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Derk-Jan Hartman
d.j.hartman+wmf...@gmail.com wrote:
So for me, the question is not how can we apply pretty serif fonts to
headers, the question is what can we do short term and long term to
make that happen.
It would be good if we could
On Thursday, April 10, 2014, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thursday, April 10, 2014, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Derk-Jan Hartman
d.j.hartman+wmf...@gmail.com wrote:
So for me, the question is not how can we
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 6:26 AM, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
..
By lower quality I mean both subjectively, but also objectively. For
example, today I was reading
https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Hamilton_wins_%27incredible%27_Bahrain_race,_F1%27s_900th_Grand_Prix
(enwikinews is one of the
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
It's pretty clear that the objectives of this project are not successfully
met at this point, and in fact have caused major problems on non-Latin
script WMF sites, and significant but less critical problems on Latin
script
On Apr 9, 2014 2:02 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
It's pretty clear that the objectives of this project are not
successfully
met at this point, and in fact have caused major problems on non-Latin
On 9 April 2014 09:26, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
I havent looked at how much
testing was done, or if there was some staging of the rollout, but it is
clear that it wasnt careful enough.
To be fair, it's easy to say that in hindsight. But e.g. who knew so
many people were
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 5:06 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 April 2014 09:26, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
I havent looked at how much
testing was done, or if there was some staging of the rollout, but it is
clear that it wasnt careful enough.
To be fair,
On 9 April 2014 11:16, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Did you even read my email?
Yes, I was responding to just that part.
- d.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On 09/04/14 08:26, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
I agree with everything Risker said. I go further and suggest the team
involved stops defending their goals and implementation. The former are not
the issue, and the latter was indefensible. I havent looked at how much
testing was done, or if there
Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
It's pretty clear that the objectives of this project are not successfully
met at this point, and in fact have caused major problems on non-Latin
script WMF sites, and significant but less critical problems on Latin
script sites. Several factors
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:05 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
There is a bit of amnesia about the fact that almost all editors are also
readers and regular users of the projects we create, and those editors have
been encouraged since Day One to inform developers of any technical
Interestingly, but probably completely unrelated, I note that one of the
options on your first reference [Varnish: Pageviews By Top Wikis] shows a
drop to zero in page views at around 0625 hours UTC today. Of course, the
view only gives an 8 hour snapshot, so it's not possible for an ordinary
Which gulf is growing more quickly - between the WMF staff and volunteers,
or between the veteran editing population and the typical reader? I won't
argue that there is some distance, and a degree of conflict, between the
goals and priorities of the staff and many veteran volunteers. But
On 9 April 2014 17:30, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
That said, we shouldn't be afraid of making changes where we
reasonably think they might be a good idea, even without evidence they
actually are. You can't have data on everything. I just don't like
Well we are undoubtedly making
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:33 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 April 2014 17:30, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
That said, we shouldn't be afraid of making changes where we
reasonably think they might be a good idea, even without evidence they
actually are. You can't
On 9 April 2014 14:07, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:33 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 April 2014 17:30, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
That said, we shouldn't be afraid of making changes where we
reasonably think they
On 9 April 2014 19:36, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
And has any testing been done with screen readers and dyslexia readers to
test #4? I've not seen any reports of that. We do have some regular
users of screen readers who would probably have been right there letting
you know if there
Hoi,
Given that you do have statistics, how did all the huha around the ULS
performance issue and now all this hit the use of the functionality for
dyslexic people?
We know that it helps but how do we help people with dyslexia? They are
only 7 to 10% of a population.. I have not done the
In https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/124475/ (go back to sans-serif)
Legoktm claims There was a consensus that listing only non-free fonts was
not acceptable, that's not my recollection. Was a bug ever filed?
Kaldari valiantly tried to put non-free fonts first, that caused bug
63512. Now as I
On Apr 8, 2014 3:46 AM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:40 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
I've read through this thread and I've formulated two questions:
* Is there consensus to specify font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',
Helvetica,
Arial,
On 4/8/14, S Page sp...@wikimedia.org wrote:
In https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/124475/ (go back to sans-serif)
Legoktm claims There was a consensus that listing only non-free fonts was
not acceptable, that's not my recollection. Was a bug ever filed?
Kaldari valiantly tried to put
On 08-04-2014 05:01, Ori Livneh wrote:
Erwin, can you help me understand what is a suitable localization
mechanism? I filed bug 59983 (Investigate noto font as potential
replacement for diverse font families) back in January because I thought
it could help with localization, so I'd really like
On 08-04-2014 03:25, Steven Walling wrote:
I totally agree. I don't see how there is any indication this is
functionally broken or a major regression across languages, keeping in mind
the necessity of ULS et al still. What major language-related bugs have
been raised that would not be present
On 08/04/14 06:57, S Page wrote:
In https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/124475/ (go back to sans-serif)
Legoktm claims There was a consensus that listing only non-free fonts was
not acceptable, that's not my recollection. Was a bug ever filed?
Kaldari valiantly tried to put non-free fonts
I don't really have the energy to keep having this conversation, I
appreciate that everyone has taken the time to weigh in on this whatever
you opinion is on the matter.
From Issara...
* Windows users got fonts optimised for Windows, and which Windows
knows well how to render. They may not be
Jared Zimmerman writes:
I'm tired of fighting over this, I'd like to move on, and moving on does
not mean going on to the status quo.
The status quo has been thoroughly tested by 400 million viewers a month, for
46 months (June 2010-March 2014; ); it is a flexible and elegant solution
that
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Jared Zimmerman
jared.zimmer...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I don't really have the energy to keep having this conversation, I
appreciate that everyone has taken the time to weigh in on this whatever
you opinion is on the matter.
From Issara...
* Windows users got
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Martijn Hoekstra
martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
So, the font stack changes with regards to the status quo now change
nothing for Windows users, changes Helvetica - Helvetica neue for Mac
users and changes Arial, DejaVu Sans or Arimo for possibly something
On 08-04-2014 19:29, Jared Zimmerman wrote:
I don't really have the energy to keep having this conversation, I
appreciate that everyone has taken the time to weigh in on this whatever
you opinion is on the matter.
I am sorry you feel that way. But I have to make one thing clear:
This is not
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote:
Linux often gets arial. Anyone with wine will probably have it installed,
too, and most will have wine even if they don't use it. It's not
necessarily a particularly good copy, either.
With the current stack that won't
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Martijn Hoekstra
martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
So, the font stack changes with regards to the status quo now change
nothing for Windows users, changes Helvetica - Helvetica neue for
Just a note that Brandon just commented on the patchset:
We discussed this patch today during our weekly design team meeting
and how to move forward. At this point in time we are leaning towards
+2'ing this but we want to have a bit of discussion internally before
doing so.
We'll have something
Copying and pasting what I wrote on that patchset
For the record, I'm happy to +2 this if necessary but I still feel
this is a short term crappy solution that doesn't truly promote unfree
fonts as claimed in the commit message (since we are basically saying
in this give non-free Helvetica for Mac
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Martijn Hoekstra
martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
So, the font stack changes with regards to the
I want to clarify Steven's point, which was mostly clear but I want to make
sure the details and rationale are pointed out.
When mixing serif and san-serif typefaces using any random two font faces
is not acceptable, therefore letting the browser/OS arbitrarily choose any
serif to pair with any
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Martijn Hoekstra
martijnhoeks...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Martijn Hoekstra
Perhaps this is a question that has an answer elsewhere but, irrespective
of if this change should be made to WMF wikis, why are we:
a) Making this a change in core?
and b) Not making the change in core be a SASS variable that can then be
set as a preference somewhere? (I say this because we've
On 2014-04-08, 12:33 PM, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
That is not the status quo, but the diff between the Odder patch and the
typography refresh basically is the Set a non-free font stack to give Mac
now Helvetica Neue rather than Helvetica, with a -2 is planted in the
ground before as a
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Matthew Walker mwal...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Perhaps this is a question that has an answer elsewhere but, irrespective
of if this change should be made to WMF wikis, why are we:
a) Making this a change in core?
and b) Not making the change in core be a SASS
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Matthew Walker mwal...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Perhaps this is a question that has an answer elsewhere but, irrespective
of if this change should be made to WMF wikis, why are we:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Jon Robson jrob...@wikimedia.org wrote:
1) Picking a new open font that is either
** widely available on Linux but not so much on Windows
** renders well in Windows
Coming back to the above option...
Today we spent some time testing a stack that puts Nimbus
I've been sitting back watching this thread as it has unfolded, as well as
the discussions in a few other places, to better understand how this
particular subset of the Wikimedia/Mediawiki community problem-solved. I'd
like to share with you all a few observations.
Steven and Jon, consider
On 07/04/14 20:19, Jon Robson wrote:
After the deploy last Thursday various users on Village Pumps bug
reports and external sites (e.g. Twitter and Reddit) were informing us
that the new typography was unreadable. Sadly it was difficult to
distinguish whether this was simply a dislike of the new
* Isarra Yos wrote:
5) Restore the status quo - specifying 'sans-serif' as the font, which
translates to the default font for the platform, had none of these
problems, and resulted in fonts for all platforms which were good for
those platforms (though perhaps not necessarily the best).
*
This. Let's go back to what we *know* worked.
-Chad
On Apr 7, 2014 1:52 PM, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/04/14 20:19, Jon Robson wrote:
After the deploy last Thursday various users on Village Pumps bug
reports and external sites (e.g. Twitter and Reddit) were informing us
On 07/04/14 21:03, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
+1, but to me 'serif' rather than 'sans-serif' for the section headers is
nicer. YMMV and can certainly live with sans for section headers
Having different serif for the headers with sans-serif content can be a
bit dangerous, depending on the fonts in
On 07-04-2014 22:52, Isarra Yos wrote:
5) Restore the status quo - specifying 'sans-serif' as the font
+1 for option 5. I have posted my preliminary evaluation at [1] and [2],
which basically deals with why this update is so Latin-centric, and has
non-latin scripts users left with a totally
Chad writes:
This. Let's go back to what we *know* worked.
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/124387/ has already been merged, so you're
/just/ late – unless you want to submit yet another patch reverting to sans-
serif.
Tomasz
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote:
5) Restore the status quo - specifying 'sans-serif' as the font, which
translates to the default font for the platform, had none of these
problems, and resulted in fonts for all platforms which were good for those
platforms
I noticed from Kaldari's notes [1] that Open sans was rejected based
on language support and install base. I notice however that it is
pretty popular on the web [2,3]. Can someone elaborate on these
results as it is surprised me?
To me we can learn from this experience that install base
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Jon Robson jdlrob...@gmail.com wrote:
I noticed from Kaldari's notes [1] that Open sans was rejected based
on language support and install base. I notice however that it is
pretty popular on the web [2,3]. Can someone elaborate on these
results as it is
Private/offlist
Steven,
I think you're missing what Issara and others like myself have
suggested: just reverting the fontstack part, not the
font-size/color/etc that are a part of the changeset.
Greg
quote name=Steven Walling date=2014-04-07 time=15:41:02 -0700
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:52 PM,
quote name=Greg Grossmeier date=2014-04-07 time=15:57:39 -0700
Private/offlist
well crap.
--
| Greg GrossmeierGPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E |
| identi.ca: @gregA18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Sadly it was difficult to
distinguish whether this was simply a dislike of the new fonts or
something deeper related to a bug.
Since, you're changing something primarily for aesthetic purposes (I think
anyways, all the accounts of why we even would want to change the font are
very hand wavey
On 08-04-2014 00:45, Steven Walling wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Jon Robson jdlrob...@gmail.com wrote:
I noticed from Kaldari's notes [1] that Open sans was rejected based
on language support and install base.
A similar example is Google's Noto font (
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski
tom...@twkozlowski.netwrote:
Chad writes:
This. Let's go back to what we *know* worked.
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/124387/ has already been merged, so
you're
/just/ late – unless you want to submit yet another patch reverting to
I feel that I am not being taken seriously. Three times now I have indicated
what is wrong with this solution, namely that a single font stack cannot
possibly serve a global website.
I'm sorry you feel this way, if I wasn't clear, I agree with you, but
I think where we disagree is that we
On 08-04-2014 01:14, Jon Robson wrote:
Yes I thought I had recognised this. See my message above: The
language support is more of an issue, but I wonder if this can be
resolved by specific font stacks with more suitable open fonts is
provided.
I think we have a great chance to iterate from here
Hi.
I've read through this thread and I've formulated two questions:
* Is there consensus to specify font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica,
Arial, sans-serif; in MediaWiki core?
* Is there an issue with specifying font-family: sans-serif; in
MediaWiki core?
Based on my reading of this
On 08/04/14 00:02, Steven Walling wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Erwin Dokter er...@darcoury.nl wrote:
I feel that I am not being taken seriously. Three times now I have
indicated what is wrong with this solution, namely that a single font stack
cannot possibly serve a global website.
On 4/7/14, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Erwin Dokter er...@darcoury.nl wrote:
I feel that I am not being taken seriously. Three times now I have
indicated what is wrong with this solution, namely that a single font
stack
cannot possibly serve
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
No you don't get more consistency by moving back to an experience
where you let the browser determine fonts. However you do get a
situation where things are more likely to work for non-latin scripts
(and other issues that
(anonymous) wrote:
This. Let's go back to what we *know* worked.
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/124387/ has already been merged, so
you're
/just/ late – unless you want to submit yet another patch reverting to
sans-
serif.
I would write said patch but I have no desire to get into
I am going to be annoying and answer your question with a question:
consensus among who? How do make a decision like this?
On the one hand, you have Wikimedia users, who don't really care about the
appearance of promoting FOSS or not.
[Citation needed]. User's aren't one person, but quite a
On 4/7/14, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
No you don't get more consistency by moving back to an experience
where you let the browser determine fonts. However you do get a
situation where things are more
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
We can gain more consistent, accessible typography across languages
with an
iterative approach that continues to build on what we've done over the
last
five months. Or we can go back to the drawing board to try and
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Tim Landscheidt t...@tim-landscheidt.dewrote:
(anonymous) wrote:
This. Let's go back to what we *know* worked.
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/124387/ has already been merged, so
you're
/just/ late – unless you want to submit yet another patch
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Erwin Dokter er...@darcoury.nl wrote:
On 08-04-2014 00:45, Steven Walling wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Jon Robson jdlrob...@gmail.com wrote:
I noticed from Kaldari's notes [1] that Open sans was rejected based
on language support and install base.
Steven Walling wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:40 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
* Is there an issue with specifying font-family: sans-serif; in
MediaWiki core?
Do you mean just for body type as Odder proposed in
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/124475/, or for everything?
That's
93 matches
Mail list logo
