Is this "ubuntu has bad fonts" really "a thing"? I mean, the Joe user can't barely tell Times New Roman from Arial oO
I just found this curious, but I agree with everything, and we should focus on polishing fonts and everything --- it's an aspect that makes the system look slick and all. I just found it funny because I've never read a lot of complaints about the fonts in Ubuntu being bad... *Peterson* *http://petercast.net* On 20 October 2011 15:34, topdownjimmy <topdownji...@gmail.com> wrote: > [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@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
