On Thursday, April 10, 2014, Steven Walling <steven.wall...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 10, 2014, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote: > >> Erik Moeller wrote: >> >On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Derk-Jan Hartman >> ><d.j.hartman+wmf...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> So for me, the question is not how can we apply pretty serif fonts to >> >> headers, the question is what can we do short term and long term to >> >> make that happen. >> > >> >It would be good if we could focus the conversation as much on >> >concrete bugs and issues as possible. >> >> You mean something like this? >> >> Derk-Jan Hartman wrote: >> >Short term: >> >* Accept that the current solution is not working >> >* Rely on Operating System to make the best choice it can, because we >> >cannot do better (return to status quo) >> >* Accept that maybe it might just not be possible right now >> >* Gather statistics on cleartype font rendering (just like we look at >> >tofu). >> >* See if there are ways to make the target group to which the font >> >change is applied narrower/stricter/better defined. >> > >> >> > How are these specific, replicable bugs? DJ is saying things the current > solution is "not working" and we "cannot do better" but there is no > evidence about why this is the case for such a large number of users that > it requires a revert back to plain sans-serif. > > People are talking in generalities and about problems related to areas > like non-Latin script support, but not referring to bugs filed and which > would be fixed by the suggested patch. Brian's recent comment here is an > example of what we are asking to hear, though I don't think that requires a > full revert. > > Meanwhile, in this thread and in the documentation on mediawiki.org, we > have been extremely specific about how each aspect of the new typography > (including the body fonts specified) is a pragmatic improvement for users, > and what we lose by reverting. I also posted links to that effect on the > patch. > > The patch as it stands does not refer to an unresolved bug or enhancement. > It also explicitly refers to the issue as an ideological one about > potentially promoting non-free fonts in our code, even though Jon already > out a FIXME acknowledging this. > > Unless you can raise issues that cause actual functional problems that > outweigh the benefits of the new body font stack, I don't think merging > that patch is required to improve things and is worth the churn in user > experience for millions of readers. > > Steven > Sorry that Gmail mobile sent that twice. :/ > > > >> >> I agree with all of this. Both Erik's and Derk-Jan's posts are very >> good, but I get the feeling that people are talking past each other in >> this thread sometimes. >> >> As Quim notes, there's an upcoming MediaWiki release. We should merge >> <https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/124475> into master and figure out what >> to >> do with the other font-family adjustments for the short-term. >> >> There seems to be demonstrable consensus for merging Gerrit change 124475 >> into master, though Steven refuses to remove his -2, which he should never >> have been able to set. If you (Erik) are truly interested in focusing the >> conversation on concrete bugs and issues, that's where I would start. >> >> MZMcBride >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikitech-l mailing list >> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
