... Plus, the webfont that we are delivering are with internationalization in mind, and not design. Nice typography is a very important thing, but its priority is not as high as making it possible to read text that is otherwise unreadable.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore 2014-03-05 20:34 GMT+02:00 Steven Walling <[email protected]>: > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Max <[email protected]> wrote: > >> *> If there is a very specific 'right font', why aren't we using it as a >> webfont?* >> I think webfonts are amazing, and we should definitely use them. However, >> even with webfonts using a font stack is a good idea. What if the user has >> an old browser that doesn't support webfonts? What if the user chose not to >> download font files to save bandwidth? In those cases we still want to do >> our best to ensure a decent reading experience, which isn't always possible >> with the default fallbacks. >> Our font stack would look something like this: >> 'Fancy pants Webfont Pro', DejaVu Sans, Arial, sans-serif; >> > > The answer to "why aren't we using webfonts" is that we're not resourced > to implement a homegrown delivery system that scales to Wikimedia-size > traffic without a performance hit. Previous webfonts delivery that we've > done for localization and accessibility has been rocky on the performance > front, and it's not realistic for us right now to implement a system that > delivers webfonts for all text to all users. (And we can't rely on TypeKit > or Google webfonts system like many other sites). > > > -- > Steven Walling, > Product Manager > https://wikimediafoundation.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > Design mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design > >
_______________________________________________ Design mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
