Le lundi 28 janvier 2008 à 10:49 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen a écrit : > Well I agree with everything except the above paragraph. I switched > over to the Liberation ones when they were announced to see how they > were.. and everytime I have switched back.. I find myself moving back > to the Liberations ones in a day or 2. > > However, I realize that deep down inside this is probably a religious > choice on my part. And any advocation of what fonts would look better > without large-scale empirical evidence would not be good. It's pretty sobering to read the net archives at about the time Microsoft released Arial. You find the very same arguments against Arial by people claiming Helvetica was the one and true font, that people used to Arial make against other fonts now. It shows how subjective the subject is. Arial will pass away like Helvetica did eventually. (now don't take me wrong there *are* bad fonts and you *can* make arguments against them but they need to be awfully more detailed than "this is obviously better" to have any weight). IMHO instead of bickering about firefox font defaults it would be way better to rip them out and have it use desktop font settings instead, so Liberation lovers can have a Liberation desktop, Luxi lovers a Luxi one, etc. The whole "it looks different in Windows" argument is flawed. If we aimed at windows emulation we'd have hard-coded a windows-alike them in Firefox instead of working hard to integrate in in our desktop. -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
