WordPress.org

Make WordPress Core

Opened 3 years ago

Closed 3 years ago

Last modified 3 years ago

#16298 closed defect (bug) (fixed)

Lucida Grande still used in some places

Reported by: demetris Owned by:
Milestone: 3.1 Priority: normal
Severity: normal Version: 3.1
Component: UI Keywords: has-patch ui-feedback dev-feedback 3.2-early
Focuses: Cc:

Description

Lucida Grande was removed from the sans-serif stack in r15858, as a result of the discussion in #8352.

I just noticed that the Help and Screen Options tabs still use it. A look into the admin stylesheets revealed a few more places. Is this for a reason?

See all instances in the attached patch.

Attachments (5)

t16298-lucida-grande-instances.diff (1.6 KB) - added by demetris 3 years ago.
Instances where Lucida Grande is still used after it was removed from the sans-serif stack
16298.diff (8.5 KB) - added by markmcwilliams 3 years ago.
add Lucida Crande back where it came from
16298.2.diff (9.6 KB) - added by JohnONolan 3 years ago.
Bring back Lucida
16298.3.diff (8.4 KB) - added by markmcwilliams 3 years ago.
same as 16298.diff just taking into effect r17334
16298.4.diff (8.6 KB) - added by chexee 3 years ago.
Adds Garuda to the top of the font stack for Linux systems. Falls back to Lucida Grande for other systems.

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (32)

demetris3 years ago

Instances where Lucida Grande is still used after it was removed from the sans-serif stack

comment:1 nacin3 years ago

  • Milestone changed from Awaiting Review to 3.1

comment:2 nacin3 years ago

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from new to closed

(In [17327]) Remove Lucida Grande from the remaining font stacks. We should at least be consistent. props demetris, fixes #16298, see #8352.

comment:3 follow-up: JohnONolan3 years ago

  • Keywords ui-feedback dev-feedback added
  • Resolution fixed deleted
  • Status changed from closed to reopened

Hang on. The change to the font-stacks was never supposed to go in! It was tried out, the decision was made for it to be reverted - which no one had time to do - and then I foolishly punted the ticket, not knowing that the change was still in trunk and under the assumption that it *had* been reverted.

I talked to several people about reverting 2 weeks ago and the decision was made that no further changes could be made to font stacks because it was too late. (I felt pretty bad about that)

However, if that's NOT the case and we CAN still make changes to font stacks then please can we revert - not implement this even further?

Last edited 3 years ago by JohnONolan (previous) (diff)

comment:4 JohnONolan3 years ago

  • Keywords changed from has-patch, ui-feedback, dev-feedback to has-patch ui-feedback dev-feedback

comment:5 saracannon3 years ago

  • Cc sararcannon@… added

I agree with John. If we can make font-stack changes for 3.1, Lucida Grande should be put back in.

The whole reason for its removal was about incompatibility issues in Ubuntu. I thought azaozz suggested a decent solution to the problem in his comment here: http://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/8352#comment:33. I would love to explore that more.

I really hope that we don't end up throwing out Lucida in this release because after the patch was committed, we all agreed that it looked really bad and needed to be reverted. And I REALLY hope it is not getting thrown out just because it is the "easiest" solution to the problem. (design should not be sacrificed this way) I'm pretty sure that everyone on a Mac in the UI group would love to work on a solution that does not involve the removal of Lucida for the next release.

If we can still make font changes for this release: please, for the love of design, REVERT.

comment:6 in reply to: ↑ 3 isaackeyet3 years ago

However, if that's NOT the case and we CAN still make changes to font stacks then please can we revert - not implement this even further?

If not-reverting means Verdana, then I think this should be considered a priority. If nothing else for maintaining a unified typographical experience ;)

comment:7 follow-up: westi3 years ago

I too thought we were going back on this change - does someone want to write a patch to revert back to what we had?

comment:8 in reply to: ↑ 7 ; follow-up: markmcwilliams3 years ago

Replying to westi:

I too thought we were going back on this change - does someone want to write a patch to revert back to what we had?

I'm half-way through one, 2 ticks and I'll upload! :)

comment:9 in reply to: ↑ 8 ; follow-up: JohnONolan3 years ago

Replying to markmcwilliams:

Replying to westi:

I too thought we were going back on this change - does someone want to write a patch to revert back to what we had?

I'm half-way through one, 2 ticks and I'll upload! :)

No need, we're going to try a standard revert I think

comment:10 in reply to: ↑ 9 markmcwilliams3 years ago

Replying to JohnONolan:

Replying to markmcwilliams:

Replying to westi:

I too thought we were going back on this change - does someone want to write a patch to revert back to what we had?

I'm half-way through one, 2 ticks and I'll upload! :)

No need, we're going to try a standard revert I think

Should work for most, couple will need adjusted manually, like the /wp-admin/includes/media.php file and wp-admin.dev.css I think after your complete rewrite! :)

From what I can tell (if that helps in any way?)

Last edited 3 years ago by markmcwilliams (previous) (diff)

markmcwilliams3 years ago

add Lucida Crande back where it came from

comment:11 follow-up: markmcwilliams3 years ago

If you want a patch, then I have attached one anyway, and seem (or at least hope) I have got all the little things back in shape? ;) On another note JohnONolan, there appears to be 2 instances of #utc-time, #local-time in wp-admin.dev.css which I found too. L3075 and L3918

Last edited 3 years ago by markmcwilliams (previous) (diff)

JohnONolan3 years ago

Bring back Lucida

comment:12 in reply to: ↑ 11 JohnONolan3 years ago

Replying to markmcwilliams:

If you want a patch, then I have attached one anyway, and seem (or at least hope) I have got all the little things back in shape? ;) On another note JohnONolan, there appears to be 2 instances of #utc-time, #local-time in wp-admin.dev.css which I found too. L3075 and L3918

New ticket + patch welcome

comment:13 JohnONolan3 years ago

Mark's patch looks more complete than mine - it solves a few other small spacing issues at the same time. Let's go with that one.

comment:14 follow-up: toscho3 years ago

  • Cc info@… added

Note that Lucida Grande has no cursive style. The browser may build its own cursive (ugh!), ignore the italic font style or choose the cursive from the next family in the stack. Therefore make sure Lucida is never used in combination with font-style:italic.

comment:15 follow-up: nacin3 years ago

This would just be a straight revert back to 3.0 state. Let's just do it already.

comment:16 jane3 years ago

It's insane that this got put back into 3.1 milestone. We decided we would live with the misses weeks ago when we entered RC.

comment:17 in reply to: ↑ 14 helenyhou3 years ago

Replying to toscho:

Note that Lucida Grande has no cursive style. The browser may build its own cursive (ugh!), ignore the italic font style or choose the cursive from the next family in the stack. Therefore make sure Lucida is never used in combination with font-style:italic.

Might take a look at http://www.brownbatterystudios.com/sixthings/2007/03/14/lucida-hybrid-the-grande-alternative/ (even though it's real late)

comment:18 follow-up: demetris3 years ago

@helenyhou

That trick is for Windows, when you want to use Lucida Sans Unicode as a fallback font for Lucida Grande. (Lucida Sans Unicode has neither Bold nor Italic. It only has one variety: Regular.)

It is also a problematic trick: It uses Lucida Sans (the plain one, no the Unicode variety) for bold and italic, but Lucida Sans, unlike Lucida Sans Unicode, has a very narrow character range. So, for anything beyond Basic Latin the result is probably worse than without the trick. If you only care about Basic Latin, though, it is a good trick.

comment:19 in reply to: ↑ 18 helenyhou3 years ago

@demetrius

You're right - I thought about character set issues right after I wrote that. Was only really thinking about the mention of the lack of italic.

comment:20 in reply to: ↑ 15 ; follow-up: markmcwilliams3 years ago

Replying to nacin:

This would just be a straight revert back to 3.0 state. Let's just do it already.

That'd involve reverting the clean-up JohnONolan did to wp-admin.dev.css though right? :(

comment:21 in reply to: ↑ 20 ; follow-up: JohnONolan3 years ago

Replying to markmcwilliams:

Replying to nacin:

This would just be a straight revert back to 3.0 state. Let's just do it already.

That'd involve reverting the clean-up JohnONolan did to wp-admin.dev.css though right? :(

No he just means that your patch would be a straight revert back to 3.0 state from a typography point-of-view. Which is basically what we want.

comment:22 in reply to: ↑ 21 markmcwilliams3 years ago

Replying to JohnONolan:

Replying to markmcwilliams:

Replying to nacin:

This would just be a straight revert back to 3.0 state. Let's just do it already.

That'd involve reverting the clean-up JohnONolan did to wp-admin.dev.css though right? :(

No he just means that your patch would be a straight revert back to 3.0 state from a typography point-of-view. Which is basically what we want.

Ah I got'ya now, must of been sleeping when I replied? ;)

markmcwilliams3 years ago

same as 16298.diff just taking into effect r17334

comment:23 markmcwilliams3 years ago

With [17334] which came up from #16308 I just updated the patch so there's no conflicts and all that, I think the question still is if it's going back in or not? :) But attachment:16298.3.diff would be the patch to use!

comment:24 automattor3 years ago

(In [17347]) Revert [17327] and [15858]. Props markmcwilliams, JohnONolan, et al. see #16298 #8352

comment:25 markjaquith3 years ago

  • Keywords 3.2-early added
  • Milestone changed from 3.1 to Future Release

Punt to 3.2 for consideration then.

comment:26 nacin3 years ago

  • Milestone changed from Future Release to 3.1
  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from reopened to closed

Closing, #8352 can handle 3.2.

grep -R Verdana * | grep -v Lucida | grep 'dev\.css' | wc -l
0

comment:27 chexee3 years ago

What about adding a substitute Linux font at the top of the font stack. Its likely that Windows and Mac systems won't have it installed and will fall back to Lucida.

There's a list of similar fonts here: http://mondaybynoon.com/2007/04/02/linux-font-equivalents-to-popular-web-typefaces/ I'm a fan of Loma or Garuda.

I don't think we should sacrifice the design/readability of specific fonts on different platforms for cross-platform consistency. Each platform renders type differently and if that means choosing a different type for each platform to get the most readability out of them, so be it.

chexee3 years ago

Adds Garuda to the top of the font stack for Linux systems. Falls back to Lucida Grande for other systems.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.