On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Jon Robson <[email protected]> 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 surprised me? > > To me we can learn from this experience that install base (especially > where Windows is concerned) is probably not such an important factor. > 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. > > To improve install base we can easily iterate on this and start using > web fonts in some form in the future. > > [1] > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh/Font_choice#Body_font_evaluation > [2] > http://www.typeandgrids.com/blog/the-ten-most-popular-web-fonts-of-2013 > [3] > http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2014/03/12/taking-a-second-look-at-free-fonts/ > A similar example is Google's Noto font ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noto_fonts). It has basically no default install base that I'm aware of, but it's focused on readability in as many scripts as possible and is Apache-licensed. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
