On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Steven Walling <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. Thanks Steven et al. It's clear from https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/108155/ that everyone involved is trying to do the right thing. :) I agree with Rob's follow-up question here -- https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Typography_refresh&diff=908614&oldid=908502 i.e. we should document our assessment of freely licensed fonts and any associated design or rendering issues. Even if specifying alternative fonts in the stack _is_ largely symbolic, to the extent that we can express our values through our choices here without negative side effects, we should. Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
