Should MediaWiki CSS prefer non-free fonts?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
125 messages Options
1234567
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should MediaWiki CSS prefer non-free fonts?

Matthew Flaschen-2
On 10/28/2013 07:43 AM, Liangent wrote:
> btw. Be aware of internationalization issues: not to say that fonts are
> usually tied to a (group of) alphabets. Even digits can be affected by the
> language info of the context they live.
>
> See [1]: this is the standard English Wikipedia signup screen, and [2]:
> with ?uselang=zh-cn added.
>
> [1] http://imagebin.org/275031
> [2] http://imagebin.org/275032

Just for the record, neither of those are Georgia.  They have both been
substituted/fallbacked.  Georgia has very recognizable numbers since
they shift on the baseline.  See the right column of
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:Account-Creation-Mockup-ByTheNumbers.png

It is indeed interesting that the system uses different fonts based on
the language, even for the numerals.  The Chinese one isn't even a
serif, although 'serif' is the last in the stack.

Matt Flaschen


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

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

Steven Walling-3
In reply to this post by Matthew Flaschen-2
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Jared Zimmerman <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> We have an action item to change the order from the free fonts that are
> visually similar to the specified non-free fonts, I don't think* that this
> will change the experience for user without those fonts but we'd have to do
> some testing, it really comes down to if we specify Helvetica Neue, and a
> particular system thinks that should match a different free font than the
> one we thought was a best match.
>

Just to confirm: I did a quick test, and it appears that on OSX (10.9)
Chrome and Firefox interpret font family settings the same using the order
Tim suggested. So the output is still Georgia headings and Helvetica Neue
body.

One question... it seems like specifying Helvetica regular and Neue is
slightly redundant. Is there are reason we don't cut Helvetica regular from
the list?

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

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

Daniel Friesen-2
On 2013-10-29 1:13 PM, Steven Walling wrote:

>
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Jared Zimmerman
> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> wrote:
>
>     We have an action item to change the order from the free fonts
>     that are visually similar to the specified non-free fonts, I don't
>     think* that this will change the experience for user without those
>     fonts but we'd have to do some testing, it really comes down to if
>     we specify Helvetica Neue, and a particular system thinks that
>     should match a different free font than the one we thought was a
>     best match.
>
>
> Just to confirm: I did a quick test, and it appears that on OSX (10.9)
> Chrome and Firefox interpret font family settings the same using the
> order Tim suggested. So the output is still Georgia headings and
> Helvetica Neue body.
>
> One question... it seems like specifying Helvetica regular and Neue is
> slightly redundant. Is there are reason we don't cut Helvetica regular
> from the list?
From my memory there were versions of OSX that had Helvetica but not
Helvetica Neue. Hence `"Helvetica Neue", "Helvetica"` will pick the best
Helvetica available for the computer.

Makes sense since Helvetica Neue was an iteration that was created later
than Helvetica.

~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/]

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

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

Brandon Harris-4
In reply to this post by Steven Walling-3

        They are different fonts from different font families, not members of the same family, and Helvetica is far, far more common than Helvetica Neue.


On Oct 29, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Steven Walling <[hidden email]> wrote:

> One question... it seems like specifying Helvetica regular and Neue is slightly redundant. Is there are reason we don't cut Helvetica regular from the list?

---
Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate


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

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

Matthew Flaschen-2
In reply to this post by Matthew Flaschen-2
On 10/29/2013 06:30 PM, S Page wrote:
> This seems right. I repeat, there is no benefit to putting the free
> names first, unless designers think they look better.

One important benefit is that we encourage use of free fonts, even when
both free and proprietary fonts are installed.  This fits with our
support for free software throughout the movement.

I completely agree we should choose great free fonts that fit our
intended design.

> Most popular Linux variants specify an equivalent FOSS font for
> "Helvetica" that ships with the OS for exactly this scenario, ensuring
> that users get a decent approximation of the proprietary font's
> appearance by some FOSS font.

For the record (and I think similar to what you said), this may be the
case for Helvetica, but not necessarily Helvetica Neue.  On my machine,
fc-match gives

'Helvetica' => "Nimbus Sans L" "Regular"'
'Helvetica Neue' => "DejaVu Sans" "Book"
'Made-up font name' => "DejaVu Sans" "Book"

Nimbus Sans L is indeed based on Helvetica
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimbus_Sans_L).  I think the other two
are just last-ditch fallbacks (hence why it's the same for 'Made-up font
name').

I set up http://jsfiddle.net/UPBUH/ as a quick testing ground.  When I
check the Fonts tab of Firefox's Web Console (not Firebug), it shows
"Nimbus Sans L Bold system".  Used as:  "Nimbus Sans L".

I think that means fc is looking through the whole stack and picking
Nimbus Sans L as the best match.  I think corroborates what you said
earlier ("fontconfig will use the first font in the font stack that has
a positive match.")

S, can I ask what you see for that fiddle on the same console tab?

> A few brave users customize the matching behavior because they prefer something else, or they read some how-to
> article. If we put the free names first, we just frustrate those
> efforts, and the experience of 90% of our users doesn't change.

If we put the free font first, we're saying we want to use that free
font (because it's a free, and fits our intended design well).

The extremely few users who manually customize their font-matching can
still override e.g. what "Nimbus Sans L" points to on their machine.

> A font stack is inherently undefined behavior :)
> Yes we get somewhat unspecified behavior for a small subset of our
> users, but on balance it's better and more freedom-y to let them evolve
> a better FOSS version of the notion of "Helvetica" than nailing them to
> 2012's fallback "Nimbus Sans L".

Who says we have to nail anything down?  We can choose Nimbus Sans L
initially and then put a similar but better free font first later.

Matt Flaschen

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

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

Daniel Friesen-2
On 2013-10-29 4:07 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:

>> A few brave users customize the matching behavior because they prefer
>> something else, or they read some how-to
>> article. If we put the free names first, we just frustrate those
>> efforts, and the experience of 90% of our users doesn't change.
>
> If we put the free font first, we're saying we want to use that free
> font (because it's a free, and fits our intended design well).
>
> The extremely few users who manually customize their font-matching can
> still override e.g. what "Nimbus Sans L" points to on their machine.
You're basically suggesting that users who have customized their
browsers/OS to handle the patterns used on the majority of the internet
– many who may have done a C&P from a tutorial and actually know nothing
about the config itself – re-customize their browser/OS to support one
website/organization.

~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/]



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

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

Matthew Flaschen-2
On 10/29/2013 07:14 PM, Daniel Friesen wrote:
>> The extremely few users who manually customize their font-matching can
>> still override e.g. what "Nimbus Sans L" points to on their machine.
> You're basically suggesting that users who have customized their
> browsers/OS to handle the patterns used on the majority of the internet
> – many who may have done a C&P from a tutorial and actually know nothing
> about the config itself – re-customize their browser/OS to support one
> website/organization.

Do you really think a significant number of users have manually
customized (even by copy-and-pasting commands) the font-matching on
their machine?

I think that is a small minority, much less even than those who
customized their browser's serif or sans-serif fonts (itself small in
relative terms).

Matt Flaschen


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

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

Daniel Friesen-2
On 2013-10-29 4:25 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:

> On 10/29/2013 07:14 PM, Daniel Friesen wrote:
>>> The extremely few users who manually customize their font-matching can
>>> still override e.g. what "Nimbus Sans L" points to on their machine.
>> You're basically suggesting that users who have customized their
>> browsers/OS to handle the patterns used on the majority of the internet
>> – many who may have done a C&P from a tutorial and actually know nothing
>> about the config itself – re-customize their browser/OS to support one
>> website/organization.
>
> Do you really think a significant number of users have manually
> customized (even by copy-and-pasting commands) the font-matching on
> their machine?
>
> I think that is a small minority, much less even than those who
> customized their browser's serif or sans-serif fonts (itself small in
> relative terms).
>
> Matt Flaschen
I might agree if there were some tangible benefit to breaking things for
those few users. But the only rationale so far for practically breaking
visual improvements which even a few readers may have done by explicitly
naming open fonts is some vague sense of FOSS idealism that dosen't
provide a single practical improvement for any reader since it doesn't
actually change the fonts used by the default OS config readers use.

It basically harasses FOSS users with local customizations to do
something that doesn't provide any benefits for other FOSS users. I see
nothing but a net loss.

~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/]


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

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

Quim Gil-2
In reply to this post by Matthew Flaschen-2
On 10/29/2013 03:30 PM, S Page wrote:
> Quim:
>
>     And if we want to specify any fonts in our works, they should be free.
>
> Uh, why?  Mac users actually have Helvetica Neue, the nicest-looking
> font, Windows users have Georgia. The presence of these names in our CSS
> does nothing to hinder the cause of free fonts.

Yes, it does hinder the cause of free fonts. We won't help scratching
the itch because in practice we will rely on a proprietary solution for
our UX work targeting the majority of users. While not forcing anybody
to use free fonts, our mockups, tests, reviews, screenshots and what not
will all assume the happy coincidence that Helvetica Neue ("the most
ubiquitous in advertising copy and logos") and Georgia (Microsoft
Corporation) are everywhere.

Now compare with this hypothetical scenario: we actually bet on a set of
optional free fonts, because we care about typography as much as we care
about freedom. We use them as default in our mockups, tests, reviews,
screenshots and what not. We serve them as web fonts, we bundle them in
our apps and offline versions, we promote them to the users missing them
in their systems. We take note of our own itches and user feedback, and
we file bugs and enhancement requests upstream, or send/commission
improvements. This way we contribute spreading free typography, just
like we contribute spreading other areas of free knowledge, free culture
and free software.

 > Removing them would be detrimental for most of our users.

Detrimental... they would still be able to access all our content and
functionality without losing a single readable character, right? A lot
less "detrimental" than not serving them conveniently mp3, mpeg, flash,
Facebook/Twitter/Google login, and other proprietary options already
installed in your average Mac / Windows desktop that we decided not to
support.

If the above scenario to improve the MediaWiki/Wikimedia UX by improving
free fonts is not exciting, or a priority, then at least we could be
neutral and not promote actively any proprietary font either.

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

Daniel Friesen-2
On 2013-10-29 4:47 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
> On 10/29/2013 03:30 PM, S Page wrote:
> > Removing them would be detrimental for most of our users.
>
> Detrimental... they would still be able to access all our content and
> functionality without losing a single readable character, right? A lot
> less "detrimental" than not serving them conveniently mp3, mpeg,
> flash, Facebook/Twitter/Google login, and other proprietary options
> already installed in your average Mac / Windows desktop that we
> decided not to support.
To be fair I'd like to point out that mp3 and mpeg require WMF to encode
and serve freely licensed content in patented formats (which also have
some legal issues). Flash requires WMF to author and serve stuff
directly in a proprietary format. And Facebook/Twitter/Google login
require WMF sites to be connected server-side to and dependent on
proprietary 3rd party websites.

Proprietary fonts are copyrighted (dubiously though) not patented. WMF
is not serving any 3rd party data that is proprietary or not openly
licensed. And the openly licensed content itself is still served in a
single open non-proprietary format to everyone.
The only place open vs. non-free comes into account is on the reader's
own computer. Which is very different from the other situations listed
where open vs. non-free is on WMF's end.

~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/]


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

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

Ryan Kaldari-2
>Proprietary fonts are copyrighted (dubiously though) not patented.

Actually this is quite complicated. In the U.S., Japan, and some other
countries, typefaces cannot be copyrighted. However, specific font
implementations of typefaces can. So for, example, someone could release a
free license Helvetica within the U.S. and it would not infringe any
copyrights (within the U.S.). Typefaces can be protected by design patents
and trademarks within the U.S., however.

Regarding Nimbus Sans: Does anyone know how I can get this font without
installing all of Ghostscript?

Ryan Kaldari


On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Daniel Friesen
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> On 2013-10-29 4:47 PM, Quim Gil wrote:
> > On 10/29/2013 03:30 PM, S Page wrote:
> > > Removing them would be detrimental for most of our users.
> >
> > Detrimental... they would still be able to access all our content and
> > functionality without losing a single readable character, right? A lot
> > less "detrimental" than not serving them conveniently mp3, mpeg,
> > flash, Facebook/Twitter/Google login, and other proprietary options
> > already installed in your average Mac / Windows desktop that we
> > decided not to support.
> To be fair I'd like to point out that mp3 and mpeg require WMF to encode
> and serve freely licensed content in patented formats (which also have
> some legal issues). Flash requires WMF to author and serve stuff
> directly in a proprietary format. And Facebook/Twitter/Google login
> require WMF sites to be connected server-side to and dependent on
> proprietary 3rd party websites.
>
> Proprietary fonts are copyrighted (dubiously though) not patented. WMF
> is not serving any 3rd party data that is proprietary or not openly
> licensed. And the openly licensed content itself is still served in a
> single open non-proprietary format to everyone.
> The only place open vs. non-free comes into account is on the reader's
> own computer. Which is very different from the other situations listed
> where open vs. non-free is on WMF's end.
>
> ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [Design] Should MediaWiki CSS prefer non-free fonts?

S Page-3
In reply to this post by Matthew Flaschen-2
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Matthew Flaschen

I set up http://jsfiddle.net/UPBUH/ as a quick testing ground.

Nice, I tweaked it to make
http://jsfiddle.net/UPBUH/7/<http://jsfiddle.net/UPBUH/6/>, you can
see what your browser + O.S. picks for each font name in the font
stack.

 When I check the Fonts tab of Firefox's Web Console (not Firebug), it
> shows "Nimbus Sans L Bold system".  Used as:  "Nimbus Sans L".
>
I get the same.
FWIW Chromium does something different for me, it's matching Helvetica but
not using Nimbus Sans L. something more like Liberation Sans.

>
>  we're saying we want to use that free font (because it's a free, and fits
> our intended design well).
>
If it's as good or better than Helvetica Neue, I think everyone agrees the
free font should come first. Yo, designers...? I think Quim goes further to
argue our sans-serif font list should be
   "Nimbus Sans L", "Liberation Sans", sans-serif
I have no idea what that font stack does on Windows/Mac/iOS/Android. It's
the last thing in http://jsfiddle.net/UPBUH/7/ , can people report back?

Kaldari:
"Nimbus Sans L" is the files n019003l.{afm,pfb,pfm} in
http://packages.ubuntu.com/saucy/all/gsfonts/download , the command to
extract one file is
   $ dpkg --fsys-tarfile /path/to/gsfonts_blahblah.deb | tar xOf -
./usr/share/fonts/type1/gsfonts/n019003l.pfb > /tmp/NimbusSansL.pfb
and I sent the files to you on a 3 1/2" floppy ☺

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

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

Tim Starling-2
In reply to this post by Ryan Kaldari-2
On 30/10/13 11:37, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
> Regarding Nimbus Sans: Does anyone know how I can get this font without
> installing all of Ghostscript?

apt-get install gsfonts



_______________________________________________
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 Friesen-2
In reply to this post by Isarra Yos
On 2013-10-27 8:04 PM, Isarra Yos wrote:

> I found this to be a good part why arial was so damn unreadable on my
> linux setup, for instance, though even with it rendering properly now
> it's still narrower than I find comfortable as well. Perhaps this is
> just because I'm used to wider, but going against what people are used
> to (and thus have effectively trained their brains upon), or
> especially what they might have specifically customised (in particular
> large or dyslexic fonts come to mind as a specific usability issue
> here), also seems like an odd move.
>
> And yes, I know it's a standard move that websites tend to make. It's
> still odd, and I can't say I like that folks are trying to take
> mediawiki/wikimedia in a similar direction, even without the question
> of whether or not the specifics are free or not.
Actually I read something related recently:
http://www.64notes.com/design/stop-helvetica-arial/

I started experimenting with browsing Wikipedia using 'Open Sans',
Verdana, sans-serif; and a less black text color (ie: lower black-white
contrast).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dantman/vector.css



... Btw, I've also been experimenting with a script that uses
history.replaceState to fix the title on redirect pages for quite some
time now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dantman/vector.js

~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/]


_______________________________________________
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 Erik Moeller-4
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Prioritizing freely licensed fonts while also explicitly naming the
> preferred non-free fonts seems like an easy fix.
>

I'm sad to see that they decided to go in the entirely opposite direction,
removing all mention of free fonts entirely in their font stack,[1] and are
planning on forcing the non-free fonts on all Vector users (not just those
opted into the "beta") sometime in the week of February 24.[2]


 [1]: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/108155/
 [2]:
https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deployments&diff=prev&oldid=99414



--
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
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) <[hidden email]
> wrote:

>
> I'm sad to see that they decided to go in the entirely opposite direction,
> removing all mention of free fonts entirely in their font stack,[1] and are
> planning on forcing the non-free fonts on all Vector users (not just those
> opted into the "beta") sometime in the week of February 24.[2]
>

That's not quite accurate. The new font stack is based on feedback from
Linux users who preferred that we take advantage of the font-mapping built
into Linux rather than trying to guess arbitrary fonts that may or may not
be installed on their machine. "Helvetica", "Times", etc. are not non-free
software, they are names of well-established (non-copyrighted) typefaces
that may or may not map to free fonts on a user's machine. We aren't
"forcing non-free fonts" on anyone. We're trying to balance the
requirements of the designers with feedback from actual users, especially
free-software users. The two exceptions to this are the tops of the stacks:
"Helvetica Neue" and "Georgia". These refer to specific non-free fonts.
Helvetica Neue is essentially Helvetica redesigned for web-browsing and
Georgia is essentially Times redesigned for web-browsing. These fonts
provide a better reading experience for users who have them installed, so
the designers wanted them to be preferred over the more generic typefaces.
No specific free fonts were identified by the designers that provided
equivalent quality (although I recommended numerous ones for evaluation).

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?

Federico Leva (Nemo)
And surely, before WMF/"MediaWiki" tell the world that no free fonts of
good quality exist, there will be some document detailing exactly why
and based on what arguments/data/research the numerous free alternatives
were all rejected? Free fonts developers are an invaluable resource for
serving Wikimedia projects' content in all languages, we shouldn't
carelessly slap them in their face.

Nemo

_______________________________________________
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?

Greg Grossmeier-2
<quote name="Federico Leva (Nemo)" date="2014-02-15" time="22:52:31 +0100">
> And surely, before WMF/"MediaWiki" tell the world that no free fonts
> of good quality exist, there will be some document detailing exactly
> why and based on what arguments/data/research the numerous free
> alternatives were all rejected? Free fonts developers are an
> invaluable resource for serving Wikimedia projects' content in all
> languages, we shouldn't carelessly slap them in their face.

I just skimmed the entire thread again, and yes, this has been requested
a few times but no one from the WMF Design team has responded with that
analysis (or if would respond with an analysis). The first time it was
requested the person was told to ask the Design list, then the next
message CC'd the design list, but no response on that point.

I don't see much on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh
nor it's talk page. Nor
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Design/Typography

cc'ing the Design list :)

Greg

--
| Greg Grossmeier            GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E |
| identi.ca: @greg                A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |

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

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

Steven Walling-3
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Greg Grossmeier <[hidden email]> wrote:

> <quote name="Federico Leva (Nemo)" date="2014-02-15" time="22:52:31 +0100">
> > And surely, before WMF/"MediaWiki" tell the world that no free fonts
> > of good quality exist, there will be some document detailing exactly
> > why and based on what arguments/data/research the numerous free
> > alternatives were all rejected? Free fonts developers are an
> > invaluable resource for serving Wikimedia projects' content in all
> > languages, we shouldn't carelessly slap them in their face.
>
> I just skimmed the entire thread again, and yes, this has been requested
> a few times but no one from the WMF Design team has responded with that
> analysis (or if would respond with an analysis). The first time it was
> requested the person was told to ask the Design list, then the next
> message CC'd the design list, but no response on that point.
>
> I don't see much on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh
> nor it's talk page. Nor
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Design/Typography
>

There wasn't an answer because the question is a fundamental
misunderstanding of the way CSS works and options that are within our
reach. The question isn't "are there good free fonts?" the question is "can
we deliver good free fonts to all users?". I'll try to help the UX team
document the answer better.


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

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

Greg Grossmeier-2
<quote name="Steven Walling" date="2014-02-15" time="16:08:41 -0800">

> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Greg Grossmeier <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > <quote name="Federico Leva (Nemo)" date="2014-02-15" time="22:52:31 +0100">
> > > And surely, before WMF/"MediaWiki" tell the world that no free fonts
> > > of good quality exist, there will be some document detailing exactly
> > > why and based on what arguments/data/research the numerous free
> > > alternatives were all rejected? Free fonts developers are an
> > > invaluable resource for serving Wikimedia projects' content in all
> > > languages, we shouldn't carelessly slap them in their face.
> >
> > I just skimmed the entire thread again, and yes, this has been requested
> > a few times but no one from the WMF Design team has responded with that
> > analysis (or if would respond with an analysis). The first time it was
> > requested the person was told to ask the Design list, then the next
> > message CC'd the design list, but no response on that point.
> >
> > I don't see much on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Typography_refresh
> > nor it's talk page. Nor
> > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Design/Typography
> >
>
> There wasn't an answer because the question is a fundamental
> misunderstanding of the way CSS works and options that are within our
> reach. The question isn't "are there good free fonts?" the question is "can
> we deliver good free fonts to all users?". I'll try to help the UX team
> document the answer better.

Thanks.

I may be part of the misunderstanding-of-how-things-work-in-font-land
contingent. Advice/clarity appreciated.

Greg


--
| Greg Grossmeier            GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E |
| identi.ca: @greg                A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
1234567