4 ms·

Because they they are not the single system default sans-serif and single system default sans-serif-monospace fonts that all websites MUST use, period, no discu

by a1369209993 7y ago

Because they they are not the single system default sans-serif and single system default sans-serif-monospace fonts that all websites MUST use, period, no discussion. As you put it: > fonts that get your attention suck If I can tell the difference between your font and the system default font, your font sucks; if I can't tell the difference, what's the damned point?

strenholme 7y ago
> the single system default sans-serif and single system default sans-serif-monospace fonts that all websites MUST use, period, no discussion. The web standards allow a website to use any WOFF (or WOFF2) font they wish to use. Please see https://www.w3.org/TR/css-fonts-3/ https://www.w3.org/TR/css-fonts-3/
- a1369209993 7y ago
  The web standards are wrong. This shouldn't be surprising, since they also allow a website to use javascript and cookies.
  - strenholme 7y ago
    Well, if it makes you feel any better, my website renders just fine on Lynx (no Javascript nor webfonts needed to render the page), complete with me putting section headings in '==Section heading name==', which is only visible in browsers without CSS. Browsers with modern CSS support see the section headings as a larger semibold sans-serif, to contrast with the serif font for body text. [1] [1] There are some rendering issues with Dillo, with made the mistake of trying to support CSS without going all the way, making sure that http://acid2.acidtests.org http://acid2.acidtests.org renders a smiley face, but even here I made sure the site still can be read. [2] Also, no cookies used on my website. No ads, no third party fonts, no third party javascript, no tracking cookies, nothing. The economic model is that my website helps me get consulting gigs. [3] I do agree with the general gist of what you’re trying to say: HTML, Javascript, and CSS have become too complicated for anything but the most highly funded of web browsers to render correctly. Both Opera and Microsoft have given up with trying to make a modern standards compliant browser, because the standards are constantly updating.
    - a1369209993 7y ago
      > Well, if it makes you feel any better, my website renders just fine on Lynx It doesn't; I only use lynx when someone tricks apt-get into updating part of my graphics stack (xorg, video dirvers, window manager, etc) and researh is needed to figure out how to forcibly downgrade it, and then only because I can't use a proper browser without a working graphics stack. > the general gist of what you're trying to say: HTML, Javascript, and CSS have become too complicated for anything but the most highly funded of web browsers to render correctly. This is subtly but critically wrong; I am saying that it is necessary than web browsers do not render websites 'correctly'. The correct behaviour is to actively refuse to let websites specify hideous fonts, snoop on user viewing activity, or execute arbitrary malware on the local machine. > Browsers with modern CSS support see [...] the serif font for body text. My point exactly.
hashmal 7y ago
"not getting your attention" and "can't tell the difference" are not the same thing.
- a1369209993 7y ago
  Fair nitpick - "haven't noticed the difference yet" would be more accurate - but I don't see how that changes the argument; if I haven't noticed a difference, what's the point?

strenholme 7y ago

> the single system default sans-serif and single system default sans-serif-monospace fonts that all websites MUST use, period, no discussion. The web standards allow a website to use any WOFF (or WOFF2) font they wish to use. Please see https://www.w3.org/TR/css-fonts-3/ https://www.w3.org/TR/css-fonts-3/

a1369209993 7y ago
The web standards are wrong. This shouldn't be surprising, since they also allow a website to use javascript and cookies.
- strenholme 7y ago
  Well, if it makes you feel any better, my website renders just fine on Lynx (no Javascript nor webfonts needed to render the page), complete with me putting section headings in '==Section heading name==', which is only visible in browsers without CSS. Browsers with modern CSS support see the section headings as a larger semibold sans-serif, to contrast with the serif font for body text. [1] [1] There are some rendering issues with Dillo, with made the mistake of trying to support CSS without going all the way, making sure that http://acid2.acidtests.org http://acid2.acidtests.org renders a smiley face, but even here I made sure the site still can be read. [2] Also, no cookies used on my website. No ads, no third party fonts, no third party javascript, no tracking cookies, nothing. The economic model is that my website helps me get consulting gigs. [3] I do agree with the general gist of what you’re trying to say: HTML, Javascript, and CSS have become too complicated for anything but the most highly funded of web browsers to render correctly. Both Opera and Microsoft have given up with trying to make a modern standards compliant browser, because the standards are constantly updating.
  - a1369209993 7y ago
    > Well, if it makes you feel any better, my website renders just fine on Lynx It doesn't; I only use lynx when someone tricks apt-get into updating part of my graphics stack (xorg, video dirvers, window manager, etc) and researh is needed to figure out how to forcibly downgrade it, and then only because I can't use a proper browser without a working graphics stack. > the general gist of what you're trying to say: HTML, Javascript, and CSS have become too complicated for anything but the most highly funded of web browsers to render correctly. This is subtly but critically wrong; I am saying that it is necessary than web browsers do not render websites 'correctly'. The correct behaviour is to actively refuse to let websites specify hideous fonts, snoop on user viewing activity, or execute arbitrary malware on the local machine. > Browsers with modern CSS support see [...] the serif font for body text. My point exactly.

hashmal 7y ago

"not getting your attention" and "can't tell the difference" are not the same thing.

a1369209993 7y ago
Fair nitpick - "haven't noticed the difference yet" would be more accurate - but I don't see how that changes the argument; if I haven't noticed a difference, what's the point?