This. Let's go back to what we *know* worked. -Chad On Apr 7, 2014 1:52 PM, "Isarra Yos" <[email protected]> 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 >> that the new typography was unreadable. Sadly it was difficult to >> distinguish whether this was simply a dislike of the new fonts or >> something deeper related to a bug. >> >> After lots of experimentation and reaching out to users on Friday, we >> discovered that the free fonts in the stack were rendering very poorly >> on some Windows machines. I experimented with some live hacks to beta >> labs to try and identify the problems [1] with a user who was >> experiencing the problem. I tested various things like >> text-size-adjust and font size. The problem that caused the text to be >> unreadable for the user was the Liberation Sans font [2] >> >> I tried to restore Arimo [3] and although it was fine for this >> particular user, it wasn't fine for another user, meaning both our >> fonts were causing issues. As a result, I have pulled together a small >> patch to remove these fonts [4]. This is meant as only a short term >> solution. >> >> As for a long term solution, what can we do? Ideas in my head involve >> 1) Picking a new open font that is either >> ** widely available on Linux but not so much on Windows >> ** renders well in Windows >> 2) We create our own open font, maybe forking an existing font. >> 3) We restore these two fonts to the font stack but using JavaScript >> either enable or disable them on Windows machines >> 4) We identify the issues here with the existing fonts, filing >> upstream bugs and find a timeframe in which we can restore them by >> 5) Insert your idea here >> >> I welcome your ideas on how we can find an open font that keeps all users >> happy. >> >> Is it worth opening an RFC on MediaWiki.org to discuss our options some >> more? >> >> [1] http://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/w/index.php?title= >> MediaWiki:Common.css&action=history >> [2] http://en.m.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/86501 >> [3] http://en.m.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Special: >> MobileDiff/86501...86502 >> [4] https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/124387 >> > > 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). > > * Windows users got fonts optimised for Windows, and which Windows > knows well how to render. They may not be free, but /we/ weren't the > ones prioritising the non-free. > * Linux users got whatever (probably free) font their distribution > provides, for which in all likelihood their fontconfig (rendering > settings) is also optimised. > * Those with cleartype etc off previously had fonts that rendered > properly or they would not have been using their system with > cleartype etc off for all this time. > * Anyone previously using free fonts, on whatever platform, did not > have their choices overridden. This also applies to those using > dyslexic-friendly and other accessibility-oriented fonts. > * And so on. > > > Given that no objective and verifiable issues with this were ever provided > to explain the need for a shift to specific fonts across all platforms and > languages in the first place, this means there should also be no issues > with going back. > > -I > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
