On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Brian Wolff <[email protected]> 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 default (The opposite of "bad defaults" concern. I think > the browser choosing a bad default is much rarer then typo refresh > overriding the good browser default with something bad). So the > question becomes, to what extent are we willing to degrade some users > experience in order to make other user's experiance better. Which > immediately raises the question of what is the level of degradation, > and for how many people, compared to what is the level of user > experience improvement, and for what percentage is the experience > improved. > > 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 few wikis I haven't overridden the font > changes with css). At first I thought there was a typo in the image > caption toward the end of the page, an extra space between "prote" and > "stor". But no, the kerning on the font chosen is just literally that > bad, that you can't tell if it is an extra space, or just a kerning > error. I call that objectively bad (There's other things I don't like > about the font choice, but they are more touchy-feely subjective) > I've filed this at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=63807 so we can talk in more detail outside the thread. I tested again in Chrome and Firefox on Linux. Steven _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
