Talk:Typography refresh

New font stack breakdown
I have proposed a new font stack (for Latin languages only) on wikitech-l, and after some feedback I was asked to test it here on mediawiki.org. So here it is:

Nimbus Sans L
For Linux. This is the defacto Helvetica font on Linux systems which result in an look similair to Mac/Windows. Windows will not match this font, as the Windows versions of the Nimbus font packages have different font family names (ie. 'NimbusSanL' instead of 'Nimbus Sans L').

Helvetica Neue
For Mac. Like Nimbus, this should not match fonts on Windows (or Linux for that matter), as those copies for Windows have different font family names (such as 'HelveticaNeueLT Com 55 Roman').

Arial
For Windows. Positioned after Nimbus Sans and Helvetica Neue, so Mac and Linux do not match Arial, but positioned before Helvetica to prevent matching an inferiour Helvetica font that may be installed on some Windows machines.

Helvetica
Generic Helvetica fallback for any system not matching any of the previous fonts.

I am quit confident this makes everyone happy because 1) every OS should end up using a native font, and 2) it "promotes" a free font at the beginning of the stack (not a high priority in my book though). — Edokter  ( talk ) — 12:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * The test stack does result in Arial for me (XP SP3, Chrome 33). I have Nimbus Sans L, Helvetica, but not Helvetica Neue installed. So providing someone can confirm Helvetica Neue on Windows doesn't break it, at least that would give legible fonts again (although I still question the wisdom of forcing stacks like this with the potential for problems for others we have seen - e.g. Linux, above. "sans-serif" is surely adequate, standard, and sensible). The rest is then a matter of my preferences - I still dislike the size and serif headers, but the body type is not broken and badly rendered any more, so my major concern for logged out or non technical users is addressed by that, thanks (assuming it's implemented). Begoon &thinsp;&#149;&thinsp; talk  16:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Typography refresh Windows Helvetica Neue.png
 * I have Helvetica Neue on Windows, attached a screenshot of what it looks like for me (I rather like it). -- Skiz zerz  04:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Header fontstack

 * See also: Header test

As an experiment, the [//test.wikipedia.org test wiki] has a new font stack for the serif headers:

Reason: the 'Linux Libertine'/'Georgia' stack is too inconsistent. Stylistically worlds apart and their sizing is also very different. Georgia's use of en:text figures is also an eyesore to many. Perhaps ironically, the middle ground in both style and size between these two fonts is provided by Times (New Roman). Where serifs are concerned, Times is as neutral as Helvetica is for sans-serif. It is also the most ubiquitous serif amongst platforms, which helps consistency. Thoughts? — Edokter  ( talk ) — 14:03, Today (UTC+2)

(Edit:) Another reason Georgia is not fit for a global font stack is that it only supports Latin/European scripts. Like the body font, perhaps the default should be 'serif' and Georgia should be reserved for Latin stacks only. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 09:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

As for a free font I don't have a good option at hand right now. Linux Libertine is quite close to Times I'm afraid, but at least it's the font used in our Wikipedia Logo. Therefore I think it's a fine choice at least in that respect and I wouldn't replace it with Nimbus Roman No9 L. --Patrick87 (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Times New Roman is ugly. While it is legible, esthetically it just does not look good. Since we don't really need to aim for maximum legibility for headers (they are rendered large enough to be easily readable even on the smallest screens) but actually want to give Wikipedia some characteristic look by the use of serif headers, I'd abstain from using Times. --Patrick87 (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a matter of opinion; I like Times' neutrality. Do you have a suggestion for a serif that you do like? — Edokter  ( talk ) — 16:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm fine with Georgia. It looks "smoother" compared to Times New Roman. Actually Times is too narrow for my taste which doesn't look too well in headers. What you describe as "neutrality" seems rather sterile to me. Times might be a fine font for body text (as it doesn't draw any attention) but I assume that's the exact opposite of what we want to achieve with headers.
 * You are right that Times New Roman is a very ubiquitous font. It's the default serif font for Internet Explorer and widely used in the world of academia and law. For some reason it has not been optimized for screen in all its weights. The Bold weight is a fat or heavy and is altogether a different style than the regular weight, The italic weight is also too wide which would create an issue to a lot of articles that are set in nouns for Wikipedia Article Pages. The capitals are too heavy and wide, Specifically, the kerning on screens is weak without antialiasing, which i'm not sure we can count on. Some lower case characters when set in non standard sizes lowercase 'e' is cramped and strangely offsets to the left. In general its a default font, but there is little evidence that its been optimized for screens. Also for windows users who don't have georgia, TNR will be the fallback font. Vibhabamba (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * All Windows/Mac users have Georgia, and many Linux users have too. The main problem I have with Georgia is its use of text figures. I can disable that for Win/Mac, but not for Linux because they are stuck with an pre-OpenType version of Georgia. I still don't know what Linux Libertine is doing there; it has a very low install base, and is the stylistic counterweight of Georgia. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 20:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but how many headers actually contain numbers? It's very rare and even if a header happens to contain a number the use of text figures is not an issue at all. It's only that people are not even used to serif headers yet, therefore blaming the seemingly evident "flaw" of "misaligned" numbers is one way to express this. I bet if you give Georgia two weeks, nobody will actually notice the text figures anymore. Does anybody have a real issue with them? I doubt it... --Patrick87 (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * More then you think, predominantly in article titles. And yes, they are a real problem in some scripts, mainly CJK. Text figures are OK for body text but are not suitable for headers. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 01:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Georgia is a lovely screen font, and has a wide distribution. Sadly, the text figures rule it out from being used as title font. I'm not enthusiastic about Times New Roman, but it may well be the only viable serif alternative. If the size is large enough it's OK, even without smoothing.
 * OTOH, why not take "serif" for titles? It will be Times in 90% of cases, but I can change my default serif to "Cambria" or whatever. Power to the user.
 * OTthirdH, I played around and found "Trebuchet" an interesting contrast to Arial. So, if it doesn't have to be a serif, this would work IMHO. --87.157.67.76 22:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The edited in reason to abandon Georgia (no support for non-Latin characters) is the first argument I'd accept (the rest seemed more or less like personal preferences to me). However I think we should consider increasing the size of  headers then. I just tested on Windows with "Times New Roman" and they look tiny. E.g. the size of serif   headers is not much larger than the bolded sans-serif   headers. Because of the bolding (and the narrow font face of Times New Roman)   headers look even more prominent than the   headers do! --Patrick87 (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as looks go, Georgia does look better, despite its shortcomings. It is still not suitable as global font stack, so it should be reserved for Latin/Cyrillic only, with Times/serif as a global fallback. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 20:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Palatino
As the only other alternative to the Times stack, I can offer Palatino, which also has a good cross-platform record, wide script support and excelent legibility. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 15:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For some reason  turns out to be rendered as "URW Palladio L Bold" on my System (Windows 7, Firefox 28) since it's the only font face I have installed of this family. I have no idea where it comes from though, but it might be a problem if more people have only the bold variant installed. --Patrick87 (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That is correct behaviour. But I am suprised you only have the bold font. They are usually installed with all variants together. It possibly comes from Libre/OpenOffice (but not sure). 'URW Palladio L' should not match on Windows, where its font family name is 'URWPalladioL', so OpenOffice may also set a font substitute. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 19:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Firefox with DirectWrite enabled (standard behavior on Vista and newer) not only recognizes the PS font name like GDI does but also the "family name" and "name for humans" (that's how fontforge calles these names, I don't know the proper term). So "URWPalladioL" and "URW Palladio L" are equivalent on a DirectWrite enabled Firefox. It's the same with Nimbus Sans. Maybe we should place "Palatino Linotype" first in the font stack to avoid problems on Windows. --Schulu (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yuck! I'm still on XP, which does not match the 'friendly' name with the fonts' PostScript name (which is also the font family name). Is this Firefox specific, or a DirectWrite 'feature'? It basically sends my font stacks down the drain. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 23:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Problem with accented characters
Using Firefox 25.01 on OS 10.6.8, accented characters show up as bold and their kerning is off, both in headers and in ordinary text. Using Safari 5.1.10, only the kerning problem is visible if you look closely. See en:Japanese ironclad Fusō for an example. I do have MS Office 2008 installed. The problem goes away if I use OS 10.9.2 with all the latest versions of Firefox and Safari.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It would help if you could upload a screenshot so we can see the problem. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 20:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Upload it to Commons?--173.8.239.114 21:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You can upload it here as well. It is not of much use on Commons. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 21:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Didn't much think so. I'm not running MediaWiki on my Mac, so how do I enable uploads since I don't have php?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't have to run PHP or MediaWiki; just ckick "Upload file" (under "Tools") in the menu on the left. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 16:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't show up as an option in my sidebar.--173.8.239.114 22:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah OK, I guess you need to be registered (also on Commons for that matter). — Edokter  ( talk ) — 22:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am logged in here and on Commons. Is that what you mean?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 10:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'd recommend uploading your screenshot to a temporary location for now (I tend to use http://imgur.com/ which doesn't require registering or anything), or waiting for 14 more hours, because to upload files here or at Commons, your account needs to be "Autoconfirmed", which takes 4 days at those 2 wikis. Hope that helps. –Quiddity (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Other nitpicks
— Edokter  ( talk ) — 10:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) While the font color has been changed to #252525, the headers remain black. At least for the (bold) H3 and down, this sticks out too much. Should the headers follow the body text?
 * 2) The H3 size is slightly too small; it renders 16px, only marginally larger then H4 (100% / 14px). This makes pages like ResourceLoader/Default modules hard to decypher. Suggest changing font-size to 1.2em (renders at 17px).
 * 3) The 1.6em lineheight for body text only affects  sections; lists, often used for indenting in discussions, still render at 1.5em lineheight, which is inconsistent. Should /// follow  in line-height?


 * The headers are darker so they stand out, this is intended based on reading behaviors. Readers skim article and section headers act as entry points in an otherwise dense wall of text. All colors have been contrast evaluated and conform to W3C AAA Guidelines. Thanks Vibhabamba (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Change it all back to black, then it's consistent. Actually one of the WMF devs even claimed one of the "features" of the gray body text would be to "make the headers stand out more". I dislike grayish text altogether – there's nothing gained by it's use. The only thing we loose is contrast for no reason.
 * Please be aware that we have many audiences that engage in long form reading and are not aware of how to adjust screen brightness. Typically an older demographic. We have feedback from readers which establishes that black on white vibrates for readers on bright screens when engaged in continuous reading. Also we are not 'loosing' contrast with changing from all black to #252525. #252525 provides sufficient contrast by the most stringent accessibility standards. See http://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html. Vibhabamba (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Suffucient" and "not loosing" are two different things. We loose contrast, that's pure math. If it might or might not be sufficient is a subjective measure heavily dependent on vision of the individual and the available hardware. I asked before where the feedback is that claims pure black on white would cause issues (without an answer) and I asked before where in those standards it is stated that more contrast wasn't allowed (without answer). I'd appreciate some evidence on how grayish text should increases legibility (if available), otherwise I'm tempted to call this decision a designer's whim, poorly supported by the fact that contrast is at least not too low. --Patrick87 (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree.
 * Agree. Actually I think it is time for a major UI refactoring (not to make everything look different but to make everything look consistent). Every feature that is added by the WMF (e.g. Flow, VisualEditor, Hovercards, MediaViewer, etc.) adds a new set of it's own styles instead of reusing CSS that is already available resulting in an overall inconsistent look. I don't even start talking about the unnecessary complexity, aggravated maintenance or performance. --Patrick87 (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

However I'm afraid that Flow (whatever amount of code simplification was possible so far) is a paragon of inconsistency. It looks nothing like the rest of Wikipedia but rather like an independently developed extensions that is forced into the existing layout at most half-heartedly. I'll have an eye on it though and report if I find any obviously unwanted inconsistencies. --Patrick87 (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Patrick87, Flow and Visual Editor have both been able to significantly simplify their code post typography refresh in order to have greater consistency as users navigate from page to page and mode to mode, wikipedia/mediawiki are so vast and complex that if you look you will surely find pages that are inconsistent, but we plan to, and are actively removing page and feature specific overrides in order to get greater consistency across the projects. If there are pages, or features where you see a lot of overrides being used I'd appreciate the help logging bugs we can clean up the code in those cases. Thanks! Jaredzimmerman (WMF) (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That is good news. I appreciate that this is actually worked on.
 * There's an ongoing massive reworking of the front-end, one of the items in which is "be in line with typography refresh". So, ignore the current front-end design inconsistencies for a few more weeks, please. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not appropriate here, because in this case we do not have control of the many and varied output devices (monitor types/mobile devices et al.), and so should leave the adjustment of such devices to the user, without reducing their options or range. The user can reduce contrast to taste - he cannot add back what has been removed. The fact that a guideline can be found which says this doesn't reduce contrast "too much", does not alter the reality that it does reduce it, and thus the end user's options. We shouldn't do that.
 * For [1]: I second "change it all to black". Using dark grey text can be an option to reduce contrast, in the appropriate circumstances, and I sometimes use it in images, and used to use 90% black text occasionally on physically printed pages when I was an "ink on paper" printer. However, in that case, we had control of the final output (a printing press) and product (a printed piece of paper).
 * I tend to agree with Patrick, here, that this looks a lot like a "designer's whim", rather than anything else. Also, I have no idea what "vibrate" is supposed to mean in this context.
 * For [2] and [3]: Edokter's suggestions seem sound and sensible, promote consistency, and should be implemented. Consistency is a good thing. Begoon &thinsp;&#149;&thinsp; talk  11:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep, I certainly get the feeling that (per the FAQ) designer's whim and anecdote drive this typography refresh. When will we learn to use proper controlled tests? Rich Farmbrough 16:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC).


 * Re "The user can reduce contrast to taste - he cannot add back what has been removed", but he usually can. Most monitors have contrast settings - it used to be a simple dial or pair of buttons, now it's generally hidden in the settings menus, but it's common if not almost universal. Or he can adjust the gamma settings. Or brightness settings. Or adjust the ambient lighting.

Back in the real world, you can "simulate" increased contrast over the original, but it ain't real. The visible image contrast adjustment range available will always thus be less than it was previously. It can't be otherwise. Consider, for this thought example, the poor man with the knackered old screen who already has his contrast knob forced "all the way up" to get what he wants. You reduce the contrast at source. What does he do with his knob now? For context we're talking monitor controls here - obviously you can do what you like with custom CSS etc - the ASCII characters are there - but that's not this discussion. Nobody is denying that tech savvy users can have purple text on an orange background if they like, by editing stylesheets etc. The discussion concerns users who can't, won't, or should not have to do that. A knob on a screen will not replace reduced contrast range for them. It just can't. You have, in effect, limited the abilities of that knob.
 * Chances are he's already done so as many web sites have other than black on white contrast. Not only is non-black text common, with grey being the most common colour, but non-white backgrounds are too. I just had a look at my four favourite news sites (CNN, WP, BBC, Guardian.co.uk) and all use grey text, sometimes combined with black headings. And those are among the most conservative and soberly formatted websites. It wouldn't be hard to find some with more extreme variations.
 * So FWIW I support it; it seems a decision in line with good and common practices on the web.--JohnBlackburne (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No John, the user really can't do what I said. If, for instance, for reductio ad absurdum, the site reduced the contrast to "dark grey on dark grey", there is nothing he can do with his monitor controls or Ikea lamps to make it legible. It is lost.


 * Now your argument that other websites have done it, that you like it, that other users like it, that it has caused no problems there, is valid, but separate. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS can be perfectly valid here, when expressed as well as you did. But that is not the same argument. I say, as a global, textual website, we shouldn't remove contrast options. You think it's ok. They're both fine views, but they're not both about monitor contrast adjustment. That's where we failed to mesh. This site has reduced that available range for non technical users, by default, including non-logged in users/new readers, and I disagree with that choice. That's all. Begoon &thinsp;&#149;&thinsp; talk  13:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Italic article titles
First of all, my apologies if this is in the wrong place or has been discussed ad nauseum, I contribute to the English Wikipedia and have looked all over for somewhere to post this.

For articles that have italic titles I noticed that the lower-case v looks a lot like a u. When I compared this to non-italicized titles I noticed that they are virtually 2 different fonts! The lower-case i, for example, looks like a nice, readable serif font, but when it's italicized it looks like script. Surely the italics should look like a slanted version of the standard font. Is this intentional? nagualdesign (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That is how Italic type are supposed to look like. Compare with Oblique type, usually used by sans serif fonts. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 01:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing a distinction. Still looks funky to me, mind. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 03:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)