5 ms·

I don't think web pages should stay away from font stacks just to handle people with changed esoteric browser prefs. If you as a user want to see different font

by tln 1y ago

I don't think web pages should stay away from font stacks just to handle people with changed esoteric browser prefs. If you as a user want to see different fonts everywhere, you'll need invasive tools that block font face etc. Or Firefox (where this message comes from) has a setting to "Allow pages to choose their own fonts, instead of your selections above"

krono 1y ago
These font stacks don't handle anything at all, they just throw a bunch of common typeface names at the wall and they can't even tell what sticks because it's so random. All the while, the user might have a prefered fallback font set that they prefer over any of the ones in the font stack - and even if that isn't the case, simply using 'monospace' as the only fallback will render the default monospace font anyway. I disagree with the notion that common browser configuration options available for users to change through the main/general browser settings UI would in any way be esoteric. It is wholly irrelevant anyway. The setting you mention has no effect in the case I outlined above - Even with "Allow pages to choose their own fonts, instead of your selections above." enabled, the same results are observed.
- reaperducer 1y ago
  they just throw a bunch of common typeface names at the wall and they can't even tell what sticks because it's so random. Anytime someone on HN doesn't understand CSS, they throw up their hands and call it random. Just because you don't understand what's happening doesn't mean it's random. I don't understand the SAM76 programming language, but I don't pretend that !%ii,*,1,1,!%mu,*,%F,%su,*,1//////////= is "random." the user might have a prefered fallback font set that they prefer over any of the ones in the font stack Great! Then the user gets his preferred font, as requested, instead of the one the page specified. Sounds like a win, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about. I expect you'd also complain if the web page overrode the user's choice. I disagree with the notion that common browser configuration options available for users to change through the main/general browser settings UI would in any way be esoteric. Of the six billion or so people on the web, the number of people manually overriding fonts isn't even a rounding error. It's not even a rounding error's rounding error. Get out of the tech bubble.
  - aaronblohowiak 1y ago
    Accusing the person you are replying to of not understanding css after the knowledge built in to their argument doesn’t paint you in a good light. I don’t have horse in this race, but I’d encourage you to take a beat.
    - reaperducer 1y ago
      [flagged]
  - myfonj 1y ago
    > Great! Then the user gets his preferred font, as requested, instead of the one the page specified. No. You've misread the main point. The user would have gotten his preferred font if the font stack was either just plain font-family: monospace; or font-family: <list of fonts their system does *not* support or does *not* allow to be used>, monospace; . But the case is that the suggested font stack contains some "unwanted" font that their system both supports and allows to be used, that precedes the generic `monospace` font family the user actually prefers, or, more precisely, have assigned their typeface to. Is it more clear now? I agree it is not a huge "bug" on the first sight, and as it seems even this is somewhat solvable without disabling font support completely. But since it takes some effort and expertise on the user's side, it adds the "bug" some weight nonetheless.
    - wpollock 1y ago
      Slightly off-topic question: is it still necessary to list monospace twice, the way it was years ago, to have monospace render at the correct size?
  - krono 1y ago
    Oh you flatterer! My top level comment was not a complaint at all, but rather a heads-up regarding the potentially unexpected or often misunderstood effects of applying these font stacks, accompanied by a practical example, and a personal recommendation with my reasoning. Now, please, don't be so hostile. It's nasty and makes you come across as a lot more stupid than I believe you really are.
myfonj 1y ago
> esoteric browser prefs That hurts. I see where you are standing, and can confirm you expressed opinion of the contemporary majority of browser users, but man, how sad it that. The attitude diverged by a light years, when "Setting preferred fonts for generic font families" is now "esoteric". (Web) browsers ("user agents") came to existence with these capabilities in mind, and even now are build around the principle of "preferences reconciliation" between defaults, author and user (as opposed to simple "display what author dictates"). And default font choice is probably the very first aspect it ever had to handle. (Or were you referring to some other "pref"?)
- ryandrake 1y ago
  Browsers have ceded way too much control to web designers. The user should be in control. When it comes to what fonts the computer uses, the text size, the color scheme, the user preference should be able to easily override the web site's code. Who's computer is it, anyway?
  - tracker1 1y ago
    I'd be pretty over the moon if the browser supported the following preferences... especially given the number of electron or otherwise browser embedded UI options.. system.font.primary system.font.header system.font.monospace system.colors.foreground system.colors.background system.colors.header system.colors.highlight system.colors.accent It might be reasonable to have more than this, and the accent and highlight color may or may not be the same color... but it would go a long way towards matching the system defaults, with appropriate css variables injected as well.
  - xigoi 1y ago
    The problem is that most fonts don’t support basic OpenType features. I make heavy use of small caps on my websites (they are IMO criminally underrated). If I were not using a custom font, most users would get hideous “synthetic” small caps.
  - xp84 1y ago
    The branding people have definitely won this war here. I agree with you, but the answer to your final question is, sadly these days, never the user or the supposed owner of the hardware. I think it’s pretty easy to argue today that when you boot a computer or phone, it belongs to Apple or Microsoft or Google. When you open a website or “app,“ the computer temporarily belongs to its developer. The fact that even browsers don’t have a built-in, simple-to-configure option to toggle persistent cookies on or off per website, opt-in, of course, is all the evidence you need of that for the web. None of this is OK with me, but it’s the world we have now.
toast0 1y ago
> If you as a user want to see different fonts everywhere, you'll need invasive tools that block font face etc. You have it backwards. These tools allow you to see the same fonts everywhere. Just because the page author thinks lowercase f should look out of place doesn't mean I should have to see them like that. :p

by tln 1y ago

krono 1y ago

These font stacks don't handle anything at all, they just throw a bunch of common typeface names at the wall and they can't even tell what sticks because it's so random. All the while, the user might have a prefered fallback font set that they prefer over any of the ones in the font stack - and even if that isn't the case, simply using 'monospace' as the only fallback will render the default monospace font anyway. I disagree with the notion that common browser configuration options available for users to change through the main/general browser settings UI would in any way be esoteric. It is wholly irrelevant anyway. The setting you mention has no effect in the case I outlined above - Even with "Allow pages to choose their own fonts, instead of your selections above." enabled, the same results are observed.

reaperducer 1y ago
they just throw a bunch of common typeface names at the wall and they can't even tell what sticks because it's so random. Anytime someone on HN doesn't understand CSS, they throw up their hands and call it random. Just because you don't understand what's happening doesn't mean it's random. I don't understand the SAM76 programming language, but I don't pretend that !%ii,*,1,1,!%mu,*,%F,%su,*,1//////////= is "random." the user might have a prefered fallback font set that they prefer over any of the ones in the font stack Great! Then the user gets his preferred font, as requested, instead of the one the page specified. Sounds like a win, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about. I expect you'd also complain if the web page overrode the user's choice. I disagree with the notion that common browser configuration options available for users to change through the main/general browser settings UI would in any way be esoteric. Of the six billion or so people on the web, the number of people manually overriding fonts isn't even a rounding error. It's not even a rounding error's rounding error. Get out of the tech bubble.
- aaronblohowiak 1y ago
  Accusing the person you are replying to of not understanding css after the knowledge built in to their argument doesn’t paint you in a good light. I don’t have horse in this race, but I’d encourage you to take a beat.
  - reaperducer 1y ago
    [flagged]
- myfonj 1y ago
  > Great! Then the user gets his preferred font, as requested, instead of the one the page specified. No. You've misread the main point. The user would have gotten his preferred font if the font stack was either just plain font-family: monospace; or font-family: <list of fonts their system does *not* support or does *not* allow to be used>, monospace; . But the case is that the suggested font stack contains some "unwanted" font that their system both supports and allows to be used, that precedes the generic `monospace` font family the user actually prefers, or, more precisely, have assigned their typeface to. Is it more clear now? I agree it is not a huge "bug" on the first sight, and as it seems even this is somewhat solvable without disabling font support completely. But since it takes some effort and expertise on the user's side, it adds the "bug" some weight nonetheless.
  - wpollock 1y ago
    Slightly off-topic question: is it still necessary to list monospace twice, the way it was years ago, to have monospace render at the correct size?
- krono 1y ago
  Oh you flatterer! My top level comment was not a complaint at all, but rather a heads-up regarding the potentially unexpected or often misunderstood effects of applying these font stacks, accompanied by a practical example, and a personal recommendation with my reasoning. Now, please, don't be so hostile. It's nasty and makes you come across as a lot more stupid than I believe you really are.

myfonj 1y ago

> esoteric browser prefs That hurts. I see where you are standing, and can confirm you expressed opinion of the contemporary majority of browser users, but man, how sad it that. The attitude diverged by a light years, when "Setting preferred fonts for generic font families" is now "esoteric". (Web) browsers ("user agents") came to existence with these capabilities in mind, and even now are build around the principle of "preferences reconciliation" between defaults, author and user (as opposed to simple "display what author dictates"). And default font choice is probably the very first aspect it ever had to handle. (Or were you referring to some other "pref"?)

ryandrake 1y ago
Browsers have ceded way too much control to web designers. The user should be in control. When it comes to what fonts the computer uses, the text size, the color scheme, the user preference should be able to easily override the web site's code. Who's computer is it, anyway?
- tracker1 1y ago
  I'd be pretty over the moon if the browser supported the following preferences... especially given the number of electron or otherwise browser embedded UI options.. system.font.primary system.font.header system.font.monospace system.colors.foreground system.colors.background system.colors.header system.colors.highlight system.colors.accent It might be reasonable to have more than this, and the accent and highlight color may or may not be the same color... but it would go a long way towards matching the system defaults, with appropriate css variables injected as well.
- xigoi 1y ago
  The problem is that most fonts don’t support basic OpenType features. I make heavy use of small caps on my websites (they are IMO criminally underrated). If I were not using a custom font, most users would get hideous “synthetic” small caps.
- xp84 1y ago
  The branding people have definitely won this war here. I agree with you, but the answer to your final question is, sadly these days, never the user or the supposed owner of the hardware. I think it’s pretty easy to argue today that when you boot a computer or phone, it belongs to Apple or Microsoft or Google. When you open a website or “app,“ the computer temporarily belongs to its developer. The fact that even browsers don’t have a built-in, simple-to-configure option to toggle persistent cookies on or off per website, opt-in, of course, is all the evidence you need of that for the web. None of this is OK with me, but it’s the world we have now.

toast0 1y ago

> If you as a user want to see different fonts everywhere, you'll need invasive tools that block font face etc. You have it backwards. These tools allow you to see the same fonts everywhere. Just because the page author thinks lowercase f should look out of place doesn't mean I should have to see them like that. :p