On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Jared Zimmerman < [email protected]> 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 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. > > From S Page > * Mac users get Helvetica Neue > * Windows users get Arial unless they have Helvetica Neue (unlikely) or > Helvetica (I can't reproduce bug 63662) > * Linux users get whatever F/OSS font fontconfig supplies for the > well-known string "Helvetica", I get Nimbus Sans L > > > With the changes from Jon's patch removing Arimo and Liberation Sans, the > current font stack renders very closely to what it was originally for > Windows, and is improved for Mac and Linux users. For anyone on any > platform who has made the decision to have helvetica on their machine they > get an experience which is more consistent across devices, and platforms. > 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 else, amongst which Nimbus Sans L, maybe, maybe not. It's not clear if the linux change is an improvement, as we have only one test case. Is that amount of change - effectively changing from Helvetica to Helvetica neue on Mac and nothing else - really worth defining a non-free font stack for? Is it even worth the fight over it? Or have we gotten ourselves in a situation where not backing downhas become more important than the merits of the discussion. Do you really want to defend the position "We must use a non-free font stack, because otherwise our Mac users will get Helvetica rather than Helvetica Neue"? --Martijn > > We said from day one that their might be some issues for a few non-latin > scripts, and we've reached out to the admins of those sites to help them > make small tweaks, as of jon's patch no one has provided us with any > screenshots which highlight the issues that have been mentioned from this > thread, I would welcome those screenshots as well as comments from users > fluent in the languages to comment on the matter. > > I understand if you "don't like it" there are a lot of things I don't like > too. Sadly that is a fact of life. Sometimes we don't like thing, sometimes > we have to learn to get used to things when they change. The thing that > confuses me, is that someone would go so far as to try to prohibit others > from doing their job based on their subjective opinion. Do product and > design people go and -2 developers patches when they don't agree on the > choices they've made? They do not. Do you know why? Its because we trust > them to make good decision based on the acceptance of their knowledge of > their domain. Why is Design different? Why does everyone think they have > equal say when it comes to aesthetic choices, its a good question, one I > don't think I'll try to answer here, but I think the gist of it is that > everyone has opinions, everyone says "I could have done that" whether they > could or not, whether they did or not. > > We try as much as we can, with our limited time, and limited resources to > validate our decisions in a measurable way. Sometimes this isn't possible, > sometimes things are immeasurable. Does this mean that we shouldn't do > them? No, it does not. > > The question was asked, why do we spend so much time on this when there are > other pressing matters to attend to. The answer is simple, because of this > process, this discourse where every decision is questioned, because a > process that should take a month takes six. I honestly want to move on to > tackle other problems, but if everything that my team or the product teams > work on comes up for a vote, it questioned to this degree, nothing will > happen, nothing will improve. > > 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. > > > > > > *Jared Zimmerman * \\ Director of User Experience \\ Wikimedia Foundation > > M : +1 415 609 4043 | : @JaredZimmerman< > https://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman> > > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Isarra Yos <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 first, that caused bug > >> 63512. Now as I understand it, we're back to: > >> * Mac users get Helvetica Neue > >> * Windows users get Arial unless they have Helvetica Neue (unlikely) or > >> Helvetica (I can't reproduce bug 63662) > >> * Linux users get whatever F/OSS font fontconfig supplies for the > >> well-known string "Helvetica", I get Nimbus Sans L > >> * Android users ?? (Nobody responded.) > >> > > > > 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. > > > > > > quoting Isarra Yos > >> > >> > >> Given that no objective and verifiable issues with this were ever > >>> provided > >>> ... Why? All this effort, and for what? > >>> > >>> BECAUSE DESIGN. (I begged and pleaded with the talented designers who > >> work > >> next to me to put something emphatic in the Typography refresh FAQ.) > It's > >> a > >> better design. It makes MediaWiki web sites look better for millions of > >> our > >> users by mentioning proprietary fonts that 90+% of them have. That's not > >> "objective and verifiable", it just is. Is it worth mentioning non-free > >> fonts? People disagree. But I'm saddened by the implicit and overt > >> hostility towards the art of design here ("its debatable whether this > >> actually represents "progress"", "it seems like things have shifted more > >> to > >> managers at WMF make the decisions", etc.). > >> > > > > Saying something is 'better' doesn't make it so. There are real reasons > > behind why anything is better than something else, or it would not be > > better. Even art in general is not purely subjective; if it were, we > > wouldn't hire artists and designers at all because it would be just as > > subjective to them and everyone would have different views and it'd just > be > > hopeless. > > > > Good design is good because it plays to the way our brains work. Even > > without a background in neuroscience, artists and designers learn over > time > > what works and why, and they often take classes to enumerate the concepts > > as well. These are concepts they should be referring to here, things > about > > the composition, the contrast, the use of space, the interplay between > the > > colours. You can't just say this painting did this 'because design' and > > expect anyone to take you seriously. You can, however, say that the added > > negative space helps to emphasise the subject, drawing attention away > from > > that place in the background where someone punched a hole through the > > canvas. They may still not take you seriously because then they know you > > punched a hole in the canvas, but it's a real, understandable reason. > > > > But there's more that needs to go into something like this beyond just > the > > general principles of design - this isn't a painting, but a thing that > > people use. So what of the users themselves? What of the languages that > it > > will be in, the disabilities that need to be accommodated, the hardware > on > > which it will be displayed, the software that will be rendering it to the > > end user, and the principles we uphold? How is it better in these > respects, > > and for these? > > > > 'Just is' doesn't fly. There is so much more to design than that, and to > > suggest otherwise discredits those who make it their passion. > > > > -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 > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
