I hope you don’t mind if I keep the poll public.
On 03.03.2016 00:29, Ophir Lifshitz wrote:
Hello,
In my opinion, a "classical" look should not be used for a site whose
purpose is documentation, but, a font that is very easy to read.
Perhaps one may argue about what kind of fonts is best to read, but
certainly Garamond is perfectly well legible?
For that reason, I am against both of these suggestions. I am fine
with keeping the default/Times New Roman. I would prefer prioritizing
other (visual or usability) enhancements to the documentation over the
choice of font.
I don’t think it’s a matter of prioritising. Why would one depend on the
other?
Best, Simon
Thanks,
Ophir
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Simon Albrecht <simon.albre...@mail.de
<mailto:simon.albre...@mail.de>> wrote:
<https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4771/> made me
think that we really should specify a default font for our web
site. Else the browser will be left to choose, eventually
presenting the user with Times New Roman, if he hasn’t made a
better choice yet. Shouldn’t we avoid that?
If yes, the question is: which font should we use? Personally, I
adore Garamond, which is also sufficiently ‘classical’. But I
imagine it would also make sense to use the same default as we use
when engraving music, i.e. TeX Gyre Schola.
Best, Simon
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org <mailto:bug-lilypond@gnu.org>
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
