Should MediaWiki CSS prefer non-free fonts?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
125 messages Options
1 ... 34567
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Design] Should MediaWiki CSS prefer non-free fonts?

Quim Gil-2
On 02/15/2014 09:07 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
> Frankly, I think there has been a large degree of intransigence on both
> sides. The free font advocates have refused to identify the fonts that

I still miss an answer to

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/design/2013-December/001285.html

I don't want to repeat the points again, but let me summarize the root
of all the arguments against the specification of proprietary fonts:

Fonts are software, fonts are creative works. As a matter of principle,
Wikimedia doesn't use or promote proprietary software and proprietary
creative works for our sites. There should be a very good reason to
propose an exception to this principle.


Those proposing the typography change are putting a lot of effort and
the best of their intentions in offering the best solution for the
branches and leaves of this project. However, what is being questioned
here is the root, Wikimedia selecting explicitly proprietary fonts that
will become "a core visual element of Wikipedia's language." [1]

[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh#Goals

--
Quim Gil
Technical Contributor Coordinator @ Wikimedia Foundation
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should MediaWiki CSS prefer non-free fonts?

Ryan Kaldari-2
In reply to this post by Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
I spent most of Friday working on font evaluation with the designers. First
I presented them with a blind "taste test" of 10 potential body fonts. 7 of
them were FOSS fonts, 3 were commercial. Each one was used to render an
identical section of Lorem Ipsum text in a MedaWiki page. Each font was
given a "style" score based on readability, neutrality, and "authority"
(does the font look like it conveys reliable information). Interestingly,
of the 4 fonts that they preferred, 3 of them were the commercial fonts.
The only FOSS font that scored highly was Liberation Sans.

Next, I did a blind technical evaluation. For this, I used each of the 10
fonts to render combining diacritics, ties, and other "obscure" Unicode
features. Then I gave each font a score based on how many problems it had
rendering the characters.

Finally, I researched the installation base of each font, i.e. what
operating systems it is installed on by default and also gave scores for
this.

The results can be seen at
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh/Font_choice#Body_font_evaluation
.

The highest scoring fonts were: Arial, Helvetica, Helvetica Neue, and
Liberation Sans, so I'm going to suggest that all of these fonts be
included in the body stack, with the preference order based on the "style"
scores. Although Liberation Sans and Helvetica Neue tied on the style
score, I'm going to suggest that Liberation Sans go first since it is a
FOSS font:

div#content {
    font-family: Liberation Sans, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif;
}

Additional feedback is welcome.

Ryan Kaldari




On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> I came across Gerrit change 79948[1] today, which makes "VectorBeta"
> use a pile of non-free fonts (with one free font thrown in at the end
> as a sop). Is this really the direction we want to go, considering
> that in many other areas we prefer to use free software whenever we
> can?
>
> Looking around a bit, I see this has been discussed in some "back
> corners"[2][3] (no offense intended), but not on this list and I don't
> see any place where free versus non-free was actually discussed rather
> than being brought up and then seemingly ignored.
>
> In case it helps, I did some searching through mediawiki/core and
> WMF-deployed extensions for font-family directives containing non-free
> fonts. The results are at
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Anomie/font-family (use of
> non-staff account intentional).
>
>
>  [1]: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/79948
>  [2]:
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Design/Typography#Arial.3F_18136
>  [3]: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44394
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should MediaWiki CSS prefer non-free fonts?

Brion Vibber-4
Thanks for doing this research!

I notice that while Liberation Sans got a high score for appearance, it got
a very low technical score... Since it is a FOSS project <
https://fedorahosted.org/liberation-fonts/> we should attempt to file bug
reports with Red Hat about any problems we discover, and/or post our
findings on the fedora-fonts mailing list.

-- brion


On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]>wrote:

> I spent most of Friday working on font evaluation with the designers. First
> I presented them with a blind "taste test" of 10 potential body fonts. 7 of
> them were FOSS fonts, 3 were commercial. Each one was used to render an
> identical section of Lorem Ipsum text in a MedaWiki page. Each font was
> given a "style" score based on readability, neutrality, and "authority"
> (does the font look like it conveys reliable information). Interestingly,
> of the 4 fonts that they preferred, 3 of them were the commercial fonts.
> The only FOSS font that scored highly was Liberation Sans.
>
> Next, I did a blind technical evaluation. For this, I used each of the 10
> fonts to render combining diacritics, ties, and other "obscure" Unicode
> features. Then I gave each font a score based on how many problems it had
> rendering the characters.
>
> Finally, I researched the installation base of each font, i.e. what
> operating systems it is installed on by default and also gave scores for
> this.
>
> The results can be seen at
>
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh/Font_choice#Body_font_evaluation
> .
>
> The highest scoring fonts were: Arial, Helvetica, Helvetica Neue, and
> Liberation Sans, so I'm going to suggest that all of these fonts be
> included in the body stack, with the preference order based on the "style"
> scores. Although Liberation Sans and Helvetica Neue tied on the style
> score, I'm going to suggest that Liberation Sans go first since it is a
> FOSS font:
>
> div#content {
>     font-family: Liberation Sans, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial,
> sans-serif;
> }
>
> Additional feedback is welcome.
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) <
> [hidden email]
> > wrote:
>
> > I came across Gerrit change 79948[1] today, which makes "VectorBeta"
> > use a pile of non-free fonts (with one free font thrown in at the end
> > as a sop). Is this really the direction we want to go, considering
> > that in many other areas we prefer to use free software whenever we
> > can?
> >
> > Looking around a bit, I see this has been discussed in some "back
> > corners"[2][3] (no offense intended), but not on this list and I don't
> > see any place where free versus non-free was actually discussed rather
> > than being brought up and then seemingly ignored.
> >
> > In case it helps, I did some searching through mediawiki/core and
> > WMF-deployed extensions for font-family directives containing non-free
> > fonts. The results are at
> > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Anomie/font-family (use of
> > non-staff account intentional).
> >
> >
> >  [1]: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/79948
> >  [2]:
> >
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Design/Typography#Arial.3F_18136
> >  [3]: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44394
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should MediaWiki CSS prefer non-free fonts?

Alolita Sharma-2
In reply to this post by Ryan Kaldari-2
Ryan,

This is useful. Am I assuming accurately that you looked only at Latin
language fonts focused on English. Did you consider Google webfonts too.

I would be interested in reusing your test criteria for other language
fonts too. Thanks for your efforts so far.

Best
Alolita
On Mar 3, 2014 11:57 AM, "Ryan Kaldari" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I spent most of Friday working on font evaluation with the designers. First
> I presented them with a blind "taste test" of 10 potential body fonts. 7 of
> them were FOSS fonts, 3 were commercial. Each one was used to render an
> identical section of Lorem Ipsum text in a MedaWiki page. Each font was
> given a "style" score based on readability, neutrality, and "authority"
> (does the font look like it conveys reliable information). Interestingly,
> of the 4 fonts that they preferred, 3 of them were the commercial fonts.
> The only FOSS font that scored highly was Liberation Sans.
>
> Next, I did a blind technical evaluation. For this, I used each of the 10
> fonts to render combining diacritics, ties, and other "obscure" Unicode
> features. Then I gave each font a score based on how many problems it had
> rendering the characters.
>
> Finally, I researched the installation base of each font, i.e. what
> operating systems it is installed on by default and also gave scores for
> this.
>
> The results can be seen at
>
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh/Font_choice#Body_font_evaluation
> .
>
> The highest scoring fonts were: Arial, Helvetica, Helvetica Neue, and
> Liberation Sans, so I'm going to suggest that all of these fonts be
> included in the body stack, with the preference order based on the "style"
> scores. Although Liberation Sans and Helvetica Neue tied on the style
> score, I'm going to suggest that Liberation Sans go first since it is a
> FOSS font:
>
> div#content {
>     font-family: Liberation Sans, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial,
> sans-serif;
> }
>
> Additional feedback is welcome.
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) <
> [hidden email]
> > wrote:
>
> > I came across Gerrit change 79948[1] today, which makes "VectorBeta"
> > use a pile of non-free fonts (with one free font thrown in at the end
> > as a sop). Is this really the direction we want to go, considering
> > that in many other areas we prefer to use free software whenever we
> > can?
> >
> > Looking around a bit, I see this has been discussed in some "back
> > corners"[2][3] (no offense intended), but not on this list and I don't
> > see any place where free versus non-free was actually discussed rather
> > than being brought up and then seemingly ignored.
> >
> > In case it helps, I did some searching through mediawiki/core and
> > WMF-deployed extensions for font-family directives containing non-free
> > fonts. The results are at
> > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Anomie/font-family (use of
> > non-staff account intentional).
> >
> >
> >  [1]: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/79948
> >  [2]:
> >
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Design/Typography#Arial.3F_18136
> >  [3]: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44394
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should MediaWiki CSS prefer non-free fonts?

Alolita Sharma-2
In reply to this post by Brion Vibber-4
Brion,

Happy to ping the Fedora team on this bug. They participate in our Language
Summits which we organize with Red Hat India.

Best,
Alolita
On Mar 3, 2014 12:22 PM, "Brion Vibber" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thanks for doing this research!
>
> I notice that while Liberation Sans got a high score for appearance, it got
> a very low technical score... Since it is a FOSS project <
> https://fedorahosted.org/liberation-fonts/> we should attempt to file bug
> reports with Red Hat about any problems we discover, and/or post our
> findings on the fedora-fonts mailing list.
>
> -- brion
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]
> >wrote:
>
> > I spent most of Friday working on font evaluation with the designers.
> First
> > I presented them with a blind "taste test" of 10 potential body fonts. 7
> of
> > them were FOSS fonts, 3 were commercial. Each one was used to render an
> > identical section of Lorem Ipsum text in a MedaWiki page. Each font was
> > given a "style" score based on readability, neutrality, and "authority"
> > (does the font look like it conveys reliable information). Interestingly,
> > of the 4 fonts that they preferred, 3 of them were the commercial fonts.
> > The only FOSS font that scored highly was Liberation Sans.
> >
> > Next, I did a blind technical evaluation. For this, I used each of the 10
> > fonts to render combining diacritics, ties, and other "obscure" Unicode
> > features. Then I gave each font a score based on how many problems it had
> > rendering the characters.
> >
> > Finally, I researched the installation base of each font, i.e. what
> > operating systems it is installed on by default and also gave scores for
> > this.
> >
> > The results can be seen at
> >
> >
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh/Font_choice#Body_font_evaluation
> > .
> >
> > The highest scoring fonts were: Arial, Helvetica, Helvetica Neue, and
> > Liberation Sans, so I'm going to suggest that all of these fonts be
> > included in the body stack, with the preference order based on the
> "style"
> > scores. Although Liberation Sans and Helvetica Neue tied on the style
> > score, I'm going to suggest that Liberation Sans go first since it is a
> > FOSS font:
> >
> > div#content {
> >     font-family: Liberation Sans, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial,
> > sans-serif;
> > }
> >
> > Additional feedback is welcome.
> >
> > Ryan Kaldari
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) <
> > [hidden email]
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > I came across Gerrit change 79948[1] today, which makes "VectorBeta"
> > > use a pile of non-free fonts (with one free font thrown in at the end
> > > as a sop). Is this really the direction we want to go, considering
> > > that in many other areas we prefer to use free software whenever we
> > > can?
> > >
> > > Looking around a bit, I see this has been discussed in some "back
> > > corners"[2][3] (no offense intended), but not on this list and I don't
> > > see any place where free versus non-free was actually discussed rather
> > > than being brought up and then seemingly ignored.
> > >
> > > In case it helps, I did some searching through mediawiki/core and
> > > WMF-deployed extensions for font-family directives containing non-free
> > > fonts. The results are at
> > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Anomie/font-family (use of
> > > non-staff account intentional).
> > >
> > >
> > >  [1]: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/79948
> > >  [2]:
> > >
> >
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Design/Typography#Arial.3F_18136
> > >  [3]: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44394
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should MediaWiki CSS prefer non-free fonts?

Sumana Harihareswara-2
In reply to this post by Ryan Kaldari-2
Ryan, thank you superlatively for doing and documenting this research.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should MediaWiki CSS prefer non-free fonts?

Ryan Kaldari-2
In reply to this post by Alolita Sharma-2
Yes, we only looked at Latin fonts. We are working on an FAQ, however, that
explains how wikis that use non-Latin scripts can specify their own font
stack using MediaWiki:Vector.css.

Ryan Kaldari


On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Alolita Sharma <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Ryan,
>
> This is useful. Am I assuming accurately that you looked only at Latin
> language fonts focused on English. Did you consider Google webfonts too.
>
> I would be interested in reusing your test criteria for other language
> fonts too. Thanks for your efforts so far.
>
> Best
> Alolita
> On Mar 3, 2014 11:57 AM, "Ryan Kaldari" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I spent most of Friday working on font evaluation with the designers.
> First
> > I presented them with a blind "taste test" of 10 potential body fonts. 7
> of
> > them were FOSS fonts, 3 were commercial. Each one was used to render an
> > identical section of Lorem Ipsum text in a MedaWiki page. Each font was
> > given a "style" score based on readability, neutrality, and "authority"
> > (does the font look like it conveys reliable information). Interestingly,
> > of the 4 fonts that they preferred, 3 of them were the commercial fonts.
> > The only FOSS font that scored highly was Liberation Sans.
> >
> > Next, I did a blind technical evaluation. For this, I used each of the 10
> > fonts to render combining diacritics, ties, and other "obscure" Unicode
> > features. Then I gave each font a score based on how many problems it had
> > rendering the characters.
> >
> > Finally, I researched the installation base of each font, i.e. what
> > operating systems it is installed on by default and also gave scores for
> > this.
> >
> > The results can be seen at
> >
> >
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh/Font_choice#Body_font_evaluation
> > .
> >
> > The highest scoring fonts were: Arial, Helvetica, Helvetica Neue, and
> > Liberation Sans, so I'm going to suggest that all of these fonts be
> > included in the body stack, with the preference order based on the
> "style"
> > scores. Although Liberation Sans and Helvetica Neue tied on the style
> > score, I'm going to suggest that Liberation Sans go first since it is a
> > FOSS font:
> >
> > div#content {
> >     font-family: Liberation Sans, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial,
> > sans-serif;
> > }
> >
> > Additional feedback is welcome.
> >
> > Ryan Kaldari
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) <
> > [hidden email]
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > I came across Gerrit change 79948[1] today, which makes "VectorBeta"
> > > use a pile of non-free fonts (with one free font thrown in at the end
> > > as a sop). Is this really the direction we want to go, considering
> > > that in many other areas we prefer to use free software whenever we
> > > can?
> > >
> > > Looking around a bit, I see this has been discussed in some "back
> > > corners"[2][3] (no offense intended), but not on this list and I don't
> > > see any place where free versus non-free was actually discussed rather
> > > than being brought up and then seemingly ignored.
> > >
> > > In case it helps, I did some searching through mediawiki/core and
> > > WMF-deployed extensions for font-family directives containing non-free
> > > fonts. The results are at
> > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Anomie/font-family (use of
> > > non-staff account intentional).
> > >
> > >
> > >  [1]: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/79948
> > >  [2]:
> > >
> >
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Design/Typography#Arial.3F_18136
> > >  [3]: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44394
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should MediaWiki CSS prefer non-free fonts?

Daniel Kinzler
In reply to this post by Sumana Harihareswara-2
Am 03.03.2014 21:38, schrieb Sumana Harihareswara:
> Ryan, thank you superlatively for doing and documenting this research.

+1

-- daniel


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should MediaWiki CSS prefer non-free fonts?

Jon Robson
In reply to this post by Ryan Kaldari-2
Thanks for the update Ryan and for investing your effort in this
considering the typography refresh it is a spare time project! I'm
excited to see the results.

What about headings? Are you going to run similar tests?

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I spent most of Friday working on font evaluation with the designers. First
> I presented them with a blind "taste test" of 10 potential body fonts. 7 of
> them were FOSS fonts, 3 were commercial. Each one was used to render an
> identical section of Lorem Ipsum text in a MedaWiki page. Each font was
> given a "style" score based on readability, neutrality, and "authority"
> (does the font look like it conveys reliable information). Interestingly,
> of the 4 fonts that they preferred, 3 of them were the commercial fonts.
> The only FOSS font that scored highly was Liberation Sans.
>
> Next, I did a blind technical evaluation. For this, I used each of the 10
> fonts to render combining diacritics, ties, and other "obscure" Unicode
> features. Then I gave each font a score based on how many problems it had
> rendering the characters.
>
> Finally, I researched the installation base of each font, i.e. what
> operating systems it is installed on by default and also gave scores for
> this.
>
> The results can be seen at
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh/Font_choice#Body_font_evaluation
> .
>
> The highest scoring fonts were: Arial, Helvetica, Helvetica Neue, and
> Liberation Sans, so I'm going to suggest that all of these fonts be
> included in the body stack, with the preference order based on the "style"
> scores. Although Liberation Sans and Helvetica Neue tied on the style
> score, I'm going to suggest that Liberation Sans go first since it is a
> FOSS font:
>
> div#content {
>     font-family: Liberation Sans, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial,
> sans-serif;
> }
>
> Additional feedback is welcome.
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) <[hidden email]
>> wrote:
>
>> I came across Gerrit change 79948[1] today, which makes "VectorBeta"
>> use a pile of non-free fonts (with one free font thrown in at the end
>> as a sop). Is this really the direction we want to go, considering
>> that in many other areas we prefer to use free software whenever we
>> can?
>>
>> Looking around a bit, I see this has been discussed in some "back
>> corners"[2][3] (no offense intended), but not on this list and I don't
>> see any place where free versus non-free was actually discussed rather
>> than being brought up and then seemingly ignored.
>>
>> In case it helps, I did some searching through mediawiki/core and
>> WMF-deployed extensions for font-family directives containing non-free
>> fonts. The results are at
>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Anomie/font-family (use of
>> non-staff account intentional).
>>
>>
>>  [1]: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/79948
>>  [2]:
>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Design/Typography#Arial.3F_18136
>>  [3]: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44394
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l



--
Jon Robson
* http://jonrobson.me.uk
* https://www.facebook.com/jonrobson
* @rakugojon

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should MediaWiki CSS prefer non-free fonts?

Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
In reply to this post by Ryan Kaldari-2
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I spent most of Friday working on font evaluation with the designers.

[...]

> given a "style" score based on readability, neutrality, and "authority"
> (does the font look like it conveys reliable information).


What does "neutrality" mean in the context of a font?

I'm having trouble figuring out what "authority" might actually mean
besides "Does this seem familiar to me from sites I use for reference?".

Did they actually rate these separately, or was it just one number covering
all three?

Something this subjective could probably do with a much more diverse sample.

Next, I did a blind technical evaluation. For this, I used each of the 10
> fonts to render combining diacritics, ties, and other "obscure" Unicode
> features. Then I gave each font a score based on how many problems it had
> rendering the characters.
>

It seems to me that the technical evaluation doesn't need to be blind, you
just look at "is the diacritic/tie/etc correctly positioned?".

Are there any details on this technical evaluation? What exactly was
tested, and in what ways did the fonts fail? Ideal IMO would be a table of
images (or a big image laid out as a table).

Were the technical results consistent across backends?


--
Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
Software Engineer
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should MediaWiki CSS prefer non-free fonts?

Rob Lanphier-4
In reply to this post by Ryan Kaldari-2
Hi everyone,

I wanted to give everyone an update from an in-person conversation I had
with Ryan (see...see...I do talk to people in person!)  :-)  Ryan and crew,
I'm really glad you all are following through with documentation and doing
all of the testing you are.  Thank you!

If we're going to bias toward Liberation Sans based on the install base, we
need to make sure we're testing with the version of Liberation Sans which
is actually in widespread distribution in the context it'll be used
(Linux).  I believe that is the 1.07.* for Ubuntu at least, and I think
that's true for the other Linux distros as well, due to some still
unresolved(?) hinting problems with Liberation Sans 2.00.  This is made
tougher by the fact that I think Red Hat is distributing a font billed as
1.07 on their website, but I think is in fact 2.00 when you open up the
tarball.  I'm not positive about this...I spent a lot of time on this a
couple weekends ago, and haven't touched it since, so I could be a bit
rusty on it and may have been misreading things.  It may also be that
Liberation Sans 1.07.x has better diacritic support than Liberation Sans
2.00.  Based on what Ryan showed me with 2.00, it's got a number of
technical issues.

In lieu of finding a reliable source to download Liberation Sans 1.07.x, I
sent Ryan a copy of 1.07.3 from my machine, which I believe he's in the
process of working with now.

Rob


On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Yes, we only looked at Latin fonts. We are working on an FAQ, however, that
> explains how wikis that use non-Latin scripts can specify their own font
> stack using MediaWiki:Vector.css.
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Alolita Sharma <[hidden email]
> >wrote:
>
> > Ryan,
> >
> > This is useful. Am I assuming accurately that you looked only at Latin
> > language fonts focused on English. Did you consider Google webfonts too.
> >
> > I would be interested in reusing your test criteria for other language
> > fonts too. Thanks for your efforts so far.
> >
> > Best
> > Alolita
> > On Mar 3, 2014 11:57 AM, "Ryan Kaldari" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > I spent most of Friday working on font evaluation with the designers.
> > First
> > > I presented them with a blind "taste test" of 10 potential body fonts.
> 7
> > of
> > > them were FOSS fonts, 3 were commercial. Each one was used to render an
> > > identical section of Lorem Ipsum text in a MedaWiki page. Each font was
> > > given a "style" score based on readability, neutrality, and "authority"
> > > (does the font look like it conveys reliable information).
> Interestingly,
> > > of the 4 fonts that they preferred, 3 of them were the commercial
> fonts.
> > > The only FOSS font that scored highly was Liberation Sans.
> > >
> > > Next, I did a blind technical evaluation. For this, I used each of the
> 10
> > > fonts to render combining diacritics, ties, and other "obscure" Unicode
> > > features. Then I gave each font a score based on how many problems it
> had
> > > rendering the characters.
> > >
> > > Finally, I researched the installation base of each font, i.e. what
> > > operating systems it is installed on by default and also gave scores
> for
> > > this.
> > >
> > > The results can be seen at
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh/Font_choice#Body_font_evaluation
> > > .
> > >
> > > The highest scoring fonts were: Arial, Helvetica, Helvetica Neue, and
> > > Liberation Sans, so I'm going to suggest that all of these fonts be
> > > included in the body stack, with the preference order based on the
> > "style"
> > > scores. Although Liberation Sans and Helvetica Neue tied on the style
> > > score, I'm going to suggest that Liberation Sans go first since it is a
> > > FOSS font:
> > >
> > > div#content {
> > >     font-family: Liberation Sans, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial,
> > > sans-serif;
> > > }
> > >
> > > Additional feedback is welcome.
> > >
> > > Ryan Kaldari
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I came across Gerrit change 79948[1] today, which makes "VectorBeta"
> > > > use a pile of non-free fonts (with one free font thrown in at the end
> > > > as a sop). Is this really the direction we want to go, considering
> > > > that in many other areas we prefer to use free software whenever we
> > > > can?
> > > >
> > > > Looking around a bit, I see this has been discussed in some "back
> > > > corners"[2][3] (no offense intended), but not on this list and I
> don't
> > > > see any place where free versus non-free was actually discussed
> rather
> > > > than being brought up and then seemingly ignored.
> > > >
> > > > In case it helps, I did some searching through mediawiki/core and
> > > > WMF-deployed extensions for font-family directives containing
> non-free
> > > > fonts. The results are at
> > > > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Anomie/font-family (use of
> > > > non-staff account intentional).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  [1]: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/79948
> > > >  [2]:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Design/Typography#Arial.3F_18136
> > > >  [3]: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44394
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should MediaWiki CSS prefer non-free fonts?

Brian Wolff
In reply to this post by Ryan Kaldari-2
On Mar 3, 2014 4:58 PM, "Ryan Kaldari" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Yes, we only looked at Latin fonts. We are working on an FAQ, however,
that
> explains how wikis that use non-Latin scripts can specify their own font
> stack using MediaWiki:Vector.css.
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>
>

I dont think users should be responsible for that sort of thing. Could we
do per-language css and only do this on en/other known good languages if we
know that its going to be a bad choice for some languages?

-bawolff
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should MediaWiki CSS prefer non-free fonts?

Ryan Kaldari-2
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Brian Wolff <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mar 3, 2014 4:58 PM, "Ryan Kaldari" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, we only looked at Latin fonts. We are working on an FAQ, however,
> that
> > explains how wikis that use non-Latin scripts can specify their own font
> > stack using MediaWiki:Vector.css.
> >
> > Ryan Kaldari
> >
>
> I dont think users should be responsible for that sort of thing. Could we
> do per-language css and only do this on en/other known good languages if we
> know that its going to be a bad choice for some languages?
>

There are only a couple of languages in which we know this stack will be a
"bad choice" (so far, Navajo and Vietnamese). In most languages that use
non-Latin scripts, the font-family declaration will have little or no
effect, but the readability will be improved by increasing the leading and
font-size. Specifically the existing small leading is often a problem for
Indic scripts and the existing small font-size is often a problem for
logographic scripts.

Ryan Kaldari
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should MediaWiki CSS prefer non-free fonts?

Jon Robson
Also with LESS we would be able to substitute the font variables on a
per language basis with a little tweaking. This is pretty trivial to
do and I'd suggest a reactionary approach.

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Brian Wolff <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 3, 2014 4:58 PM, "Ryan Kaldari" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes, we only looked at Latin fonts. We are working on an FAQ, however,
>> that
>> > explains how wikis that use non-Latin scripts can specify their own font
>> > stack using MediaWiki:Vector.css.
>> >
>> > Ryan Kaldari
>> >
>>
>> I dont think users should be responsible for that sort of thing. Could we
>> do per-language css and only do this on en/other known good languages if we
>> know that its going to be a bad choice for some languages?
>>
>
> There are only a couple of languages in which we know this stack will be a
> "bad choice" (so far, Navajo and Vietnamese). In most languages that use
> non-Latin scripts, the font-family declaration will have little or no
> effect, but the readability will be improved by increasing the leading and
> font-size. Specifically the existing small leading is often a problem for
> Indic scripts and the existing small font-size is often a problem for
> logographic scripts.
>
> Ryan Kaldari
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l



--
Jon Robson
* http://jonrobson.me.uk
* https://www.facebook.com/jonrobson
* @rakugojon

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should MediaWiki CSS prefer non-free fonts?

Ryan Kaldari-2
In reply to this post by Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> What does "neutrality" mean in the context of a font?
>

I'm sure the designers could give a better explanation, but basically it
means that the font doesn't have any noticeable "tone", i.e. it isn't
whimsical, cool, futuristic, timid, loud, pretentious, etc. In other words,
is the font basically "invisible", i.e. not distracting? This is an
entirely subjective assessment, but apparently that's what designers are
good at.

I'm having trouble figuring out what "authority" might actually mean
> besides "Does this seem familiar to me from sites I use for reference?".
>

I think your description is probably entirely accurate.


> Did they actually rate these separately, or was it just one number covering
> all three?
>

One number covering all three.

Something this subjective could probably do with a much more diverse sample.
>

Do you mean a more diverse sample of fonts, a more diverse sample of text,
or a more diverse sample of evaluators?

Next, I did a blind technical evaluation. For this, I used each of the 10
> > fonts to render combining diacritics, ties, and other "obscure" Unicode
> > features. Then I gave each font a score based on how many problems it had
> > rendering the characters.
> >
>
> It seems to me that the technical evaluation doesn't need to be blind, you
> just look at "is the diacritic/tie/etc correctly positioned?".
>

True, I just made them blind for good measure :)


> Are there any details on this technical evaluation? What exactly was
> tested, and in what ways did the fonts fail? Ideal IMO would be a table of
> images (or a big image laid out as a table).
>

You can see a sample from the technical tests in the file attached to this
bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1072095

Sorry I don't have more documentation for that.


> Were the technical results consistent across backends?
>

I haven't tested on different backends yet, but that's what part of what I
was talking with Rob about today. Apparently the font hinting can cause
significantly different rendering quality on different operating systems.
Any help assessing this would be appreciated.

Ryan Kaldari
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should MediaWiki CSS prefer non-free fonts?

Steven Walling
In reply to this post by Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> What does "neutrality" mean in the context of a font?
>
> I'm having trouble figuring out what "authority" might actually mean
> besides "Does this seem familiar to me from sites I use for reference?".
>

These are not terms with a purely objective measurement Brad, even if they
have a dictionary definition. It's a qualitative, subjective assessment. As
a secondary part of the design goals (behind readability) is to convey
these subjective qualities, you have to use a subjective measurement
system.

Something this subjective could probably do with a much more diverse sample.
>

Agreed, it would be awesome if we could make a little Surveymonkey to let
anyone do this blind test. Though I wouldn't necessarily trust Wikitech
readers not to use browser devtools to cheat. ;-)

A fun example of how similar qualities can be measured is the following
experiment in trustworthiness of fonts:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/hear-all-ye-people-hearken-o-earth/


I actually consulted our research and data team (Dario Taraborelli and
Aaron Halfaker) about whether we should A/B test the beta with readers.
Their reply was that a split test was not likely to produce statistically
significant results in reader-related metrics like time on site, pageviews
per unique visitor, etc. and that we have a great deal of trouble measuring
these things with precision anyway. Producing a muddled and potentially
flawed A/B test is much much worse than producing a small qualitative
assessment that we know to take with a large grain of salt. :-)
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should MediaWiki CSS prefer non-free fonts?

Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
In reply to this post by Ryan Kaldari-2
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]> wrote:

> One number covering all three.
>

One thing I wonder about is the difference in style score for Arimo (5) and
Liberation Sans (10). Apparently the only difference between the two is the
hinting.

Something this subjective could probably do with a much more diverse sample.
> >
>
> Do you mean a more diverse sample of fonts, a more diverse sample of text,
> or a more diverse sample of evaluators?
>

Evaluators.


> You can see a sample from the technical tests in the file attached to this
> bug:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1072095
>
> Sorry I don't have more documentation for that.
>

Interesting.

In some local testing, it seems that Liberation Sans (1.07.3) isn't
actually being used for any of the diacritics on
[[en:User:Kaldari/Font_test]]. If I change the font-family to "'Liberation
Sans', 'Unicode BMP Fallback SIL', 'sans-serif'" and preview I get fallback
characters on top of all the 'g's.

OTOH, Liberation Sans with DejaVu Sans as a fallback (default sans-serif on
my system) does better than your screenshot. Oddly, using Arimo as a
fallback doesn't work very well.


> I haven't tested on different backends yet, but that's what part of what I
> was talking with Rob about today. Apparently the font hinting can cause
> significantly different rendering quality on different operating systems.
> Any help assessing this would be appreciated.
>

If you tell me what exactly you want screenshots of, I can make screenshots
for all the fonts on your list except Helvetica and Helvetica Neue with
Debian's font renderer, in Firefox (really Iceweasel) and Chromium.


--
Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
Software Engineer
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should MediaWiki CSS prefer non-free fonts?

Ryan Kaldari-2
There are two very different versions of Liberation Sans, which makes
testing somewhat complicated. Liberation Sans 1.0 has bad kerning and
little support for extended Unicode. Liberation Sans 2.0 has great kerning
and implements support for a lot more glyphs, but not always correctly. The
version I used for the tests was 2.0, but according to robla, a lot of
Linux distros have 1.0 (which might be a problem due to the bad kerning).

I agree that Arimo should probably have the same style score as Liberation
Sans. It has a very small installation base, but might still be worth
considering for inclusion.

Ryan Kaldari


On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > One number covering all three.
> >
>
> One thing I wonder about is the difference in style score for Arimo (5) and
> Liberation Sans (10). Apparently the only difference between the two is the
> hinting.
>
> Something this subjective could probably do with a much more diverse
> sample.
> > >
> >
> > Do you mean a more diverse sample of fonts, a more diverse sample of
> text,
> > or a more diverse sample of evaluators?
> >
>
> Evaluators.
>
>
> > You can see a sample from the technical tests in the file attached to
> this
> > bug:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1072095
> >
> > Sorry I don't have more documentation for that.
> >
>
> Interesting.
>
> In some local testing, it seems that Liberation Sans (1.07.3) isn't
> actually being used for any of the diacritics on
> [[en:User:Kaldari/Font_test]]. If I change the font-family to "'Liberation
> Sans', 'Unicode BMP Fallback SIL', 'sans-serif'" and preview I get fallback
> characters on top of all the 'g's.
>
> OTOH, Liberation Sans with DejaVu Sans as a fallback (default sans-serif on
> my system) does better than your screenshot. Oddly, using Arimo as a
> fallback doesn't work very well.
>
>
> > I haven't tested on different backends yet, but that's what part of what
> I
> > was talking with Rob about today. Apparently the font hinting can cause
> > significantly different rendering quality on different operating systems.
> > Any help assessing this would be appreciated.
> >
>
> If you tell me what exactly you want screenshots of, I can make screenshots
> for all the fonts on your list except Helvetica and Helvetica Neue with
> Debian's font renderer, in Firefox (really Iceweasel) and Chromium.
>
>
> --
> Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
> Software Engineer
> Wikimedia Foundation
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should MediaWiki CSS prefer non-free fonts?

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Ryan Kaldari-2
Hoi,
Given that you only researched Latin fonts, did you consider the coverage
of these fonts for languages? Not all fonts are created equal, they often
do not necessarily cover all the characters that are needed for specific
languages.

Consequently, you cannot apply your work to other languages without
considering this as well.
Thanks,
        GerardM


On 3 March 2014 23:33, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Brian Wolff <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 3, 2014 4:58 PM, "Ryan Kaldari" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, we only looked at Latin fonts. We are working on an FAQ, however,
> > that
> > > explains how wikis that use non-Latin scripts can specify their own
> font
> > > stack using MediaWiki:Vector.css.
> > >
> > > Ryan Kaldari
> > >
> >
> > I dont think users should be responsible for that sort of thing. Could we
> > do per-language css and only do this on en/other known good languages if
> we
> > know that its going to be a bad choice for some languages?
> >
>
> There are only a couple of languages in which we know this stack will be a
> "bad choice" (so far, Navajo and Vietnamese). In most languages that use
> non-Latin scripts, the font-family declaration will have little or no
> effect, but the readability will be improved by increasing the leading and
> font-size. Specifically the existing small leading is often a problem for
> Indic scripts and the existing small font-size is often a problem for
> logographic scripts.
>
> Ryan Kaldari
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should MediaWiki CSS prefer non-free fonts?

Ryan Kaldari-2
In reply to this post by Ryan Kaldari-2
Just heard back from the font people at RedHat. They confirmed that
Liberation Sans is missing some needed data in its glyph positioning (GPOS)
table. You can read more about GPOS tables here:
http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/opentype/index_table_formats2.html.
They say they are going to try to work on this sometime in the next few
weeks. If any of you know about font development, feel free to chip in:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1072095

So given that Liberation Sans has some technical and style issues
(incomplete GPOS in 2.0, bad kerning in 1.0), do people support putting it
at the top of the stack? Arimo has also been discussed as an option. It is
stylistically virtually identical to Liberation Sans (but without any
kerning problems) and has much better rendering of combining characters.
Should we put Arimo at the top of the stack instead? The only downside is
that it has an extremely small installation base (Chrome OS). What do
people think of the following stack:

Arimo, Liberation Sans, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;

Ryan Kaldari


On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Ryan Kaldari <[hidden email]>wrote:

> I spent most of Friday working on font evaluation with the designers.
> First I presented them with a blind "taste test" of 10 potential body
> fonts. 7 of them were FOSS fonts, 3 were commercial. Each one was used to
> render an identical section of Lorem Ipsum text in a MedaWiki page. Each
> font was given a "style" score based on readability, neutrality, and
> "authority" (does the font look like it conveys reliable information).
> Interestingly, of the 4 fonts that they preferred, 3 of them were the
> commercial fonts. The only FOSS font that scored highly was Liberation Sans.
>
> Next, I did a blind technical evaluation. For this, I used each of the 10
> fonts to render combining diacritics, ties, and other "obscure" Unicode
> features. Then I gave each font a score based on how many problems it had
> rendering the characters.
>
> Finally, I researched the installation base of each font, i.e. what
> operating systems it is installed on by default and also gave scores for
> this.
>
> The results can be seen at
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh/Font_choice#Body_font_evaluation
> .
>
> The highest scoring fonts were: Arial, Helvetica, Helvetica Neue, and
> Liberation Sans, so I'm going to suggest that all of these fonts be
> included in the body stack, with the preference order based on the "style"
> scores. Although Liberation Sans and Helvetica Neue tied on the style
> score, I'm going to suggest that Liberation Sans go first since it is a
> FOSS font:
>
> div#content {
>     font-family: Liberation Sans, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial,
> sans-serif;
> }
>
> Additional feedback is welcome.
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I came across Gerrit change 79948[1] today, which makes "VectorBeta"
>> use a pile of non-free fonts (with one free font thrown in at the end
>> as a sop). Is this really the direction we want to go, considering
>> that in many other areas we prefer to use free software whenever we
>> can?
>>
>> Looking around a bit, I see this has been discussed in some "back
>> corners"[2][3] (no offense intended), but not on this list and I don't
>> see any place where free versus non-free was actually discussed rather
>> than being brought up and then seemingly ignored.
>>
>> In case it helps, I did some searching through mediawiki/core and
>> WMF-deployed extensions for font-family directives containing non-free
>> fonts. The results are at
>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Anomie/font-family (use of
>> non-staff account intentional).
>>
>>
>>  [1]: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/79948
>>  [2]:
>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Design/Typography#Arial.3F_18136
>>  [3]: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44394
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikitech-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
1 ... 34567