4 ms·
Why we're updating the default typography for Wikipedia
- devindotcom 13y agoI thought I was crazy when I popped in to check something earlier. Bolds look a bit lopsided, especially at small sizes. But it's probably a positive change overall.
- WWLink 13y agoTypeface hipsters?
- davidgerard 13y agoThese are typeface hipsters: http://www.fastcodesign.com/3028615/the-beautiful-wikipedia-design-that-almost-was http://www.fastcodesign.com/3028615/the-beautiful-wikipedia-... https://medium.com/p/1332a0f9eaf0 https://medium.com/p/1332a0f9eaf0 You may never have thought it in your life, but apparently web users are "design-starved". That must be why Alt-V, Y, N is my very favourite Firefox key combo. Honestly, there's not enough Comic Sans in the world to deal with people like this.
- swalling 13y agoIf this is interesting, you might also like to read the longer post by Wikimedia's Director of UX about the change. https://medium.com/p/1724cb2b7402 https://medium.com/p/1724cb2b7402
- rplst8 13y agoThe bolded fonts look nasty in Chrome on Windows.
- swalling 13y agoDo you have Liberation Sans or Arimo installed? Or are you on XP with ClearType off?
- saurik 13y agoBy using serif fonts for headings and sans-serif fonts for bodies they have broken the page alignment: the serifs push the headings over by enough pixels to be really noticeable; this kind of design requires really careful attention to optical margin layout (which is, of course, really problematic in CSS).