unity-design team mailing list archive

["gespertino@xxxxxxxxx" <gespertino@xxxxxxxxx>]

Metrics is far more important than looks for a replacement typography
for a simple reason: If metrics are different, then documents length
won't match.
A trained user (or at least trained enough to tell the difference
between two serif or sans serif fonts) will know that Arial looks
different and will get Arial for his/her documents. And if you search
for "Arial" in the Software Centre you'll get the MS core fonts
installer.
But let's imagine for a moment what would happen if the font is
replaced with a look-alike with different metrics:
What fitted exactly in the page and took n pages now doesn't fit
anymore and takes more or less pages than it should.
Result? "Ubuntu has nice fonts, they look exactly like windows... but
Libreoffice sucks because it breaks your word documents"

Typography is a tricky question, but I'm convinced that metrics is
better than looks if we need a replacement font. Of course, metrics
AND looks would be better, but that needs somebody working on it (and
dodging possible copyright claims). :-)

2011/10/20 topdownjimmy <topdownjimmy@xxxxxxxxx>:
> [Apologies if this is a duplicate message; I sent this first with an
> email address other than the one in my Launchpad profile.]
>
> I'm not positive that desktop typography falls within the scope of
> Ayatana, but this list is my best guess.
>
> Currently in /etc/fonts/conf.d/30-metric-aliases.conf (and for as long
> as I can remember in Ubuntu), Liberation Sans is specified as an
> acceptable alternative for Arial, and Liberation Serif as an
> acceptable alternative for Times New Roman. The historical reason for
> this is that the Liberation set of typefaces was specifically designed
> to be metric-compatible with its corresponding Microsoft fonts (Arial,
> Times New Roman, and Courier New).
> (http://press.redhat.com/2007/05/09/liberation-fonts/)
>
> However, it's my opinion that having this metric-compatibility is not
> as important as having similar letterforms. Especially if we are
> paying special attention to aesthetics in 12.04
> (http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/810), I think these font
> substitutions are something we should reconsider. It seems as though
> these font configuration files haven't been updated in a while, as
> they include some fonts that aren't even included in Ubuntu anymore
> (e.g., Thorndale AMT, Albany AMT). FreeSans and FreeSerif, as opposed
> to the Liberation set, are almost indistinguishable from Arial and
> Times.
>
> A major reason that I think this change would be important is the web;
> so many sites are now calling for Arial/Helvetica that in Ubuntu are
> rendered in Liberation Sans, and to someone coming from Windows or Mac
> OS, this can look very alien. Sites like Google/Gmail just don't look
> *right*, and this lends itself to the common belief that "Linux has
> bad fonts." This becomes even more important as so much of what people
> do on a computer now is within the browser.
>
> Another shortcoming of the current font config files, as regards the
> web, is that there are no substitutes defined for many common fonts
> called for in stylesheets -- Lucida Grande/Sans, Georgia (!!),
> Verdana, Tahoma, etc. Facebook, in particular, has a font stack that
> calls for Lucida first, Tahoma second, and Verdana third. A new Ubuntu
> user who goes to Facebook for the first time will see *none* of these
> alternatives. (Although, in truth, they will most likely see DejaVu
> Sans, which is a "close enough" approximation of Verdana, as far as
> free fonts go. Still, it will be jarring not to see some variant of
> Lucida.)
>
> In fact, there are many substitutions that could be taking place, but
> currently are not. There are many free font packages that could supply
> much greater versatility for fonts on the web:
>
> * Georgia -  Bitstream Charter
> * Verdana - DejaVu Sans
> * Lucida - Luxi Sans [xfonts-scalable]
> * Gill Sans - Gillius [ttf-adf-gillius]
> * Baskerville - Baskervald [ttf-adf-baskervald]
> * Franklin Gothic - UnDotum [ttf-unfonts-core]
> * Futura / Century Gothic - URW Gothic Uralic [ttf-uralic], Beteckna
> [ttf-beteckna], or Universalis [ttf-adf-universalis]
> * Palatino - URW Palladio L Roman
> * Goudy Bookletter - Goudy Bookletter [ttf-goudybookletter]
>
> Granted, adding these font packages to the default install would
> increase the size of the install disc, and I haven't done the math,
> but some of them are already included, and a couple of the others
> aren't very large at all. Also, there might be licensing issues that
> make some of these packages not technically "free," but I haven't
> researched that.
>
> Things *do* look more "authentic" with the msttcorefonts package
> installed, but that is, of course, not free, and thus shouldn't be
> included on the install disc.
>
> Finally, the default serif and sans-serif fonts in Firefox are set to
> DejaVu Sans and DejaVu Serif; this is also strange, since in Windows
> they are Arial and Times New Roman, which bear little similarity to
> the DejaVu family. As I stated before, I think FreeSans and FreeSerif
> are more similar to Arial and Times, but if metric-compatibility is
> really that much of a concern, the defaults should at least be
> Liberation.
>
> In any case I do think *something* can be done to improve the
> typographical experience on the web in Ubuntu. Thoughts?
>
> -Jay
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> Post to     : ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>