As a quick aside: http://www.google.com/search?q=ubuntu+ugly+fonts returns over 1 million results.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Peterson Silva <peterson....@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
