Design/Meetings/2012-09-15

    From The Document Foundation Wiki

    TDF LibreOffice Document Liberation Project Community Blogs Weblate Nextcloud Redmine Ask LibreOffice Donate


    Attendees

    • AlexanderWilms
    • Astron
    • Mirek2

    Topics

    • ESC call
    • Getting more people on the team
    • Design tools
    • Font repository integration
    • Font analysis

    Tasks

    • Astron: Streamline the Tools page.
    • Alex: Ask about the Ubuntu font.

    Log

    [19:37] <mirek2> hi alex
[19:41] <alexanderWilms> hi
[19:41] <alexanderWilms> Astron should come online in a few minutes
[19:42] <mirek2> great
[19:42] <mirek2> what have you discussed so far?
[19:42] <alexanderWilms> Nothing, actually
[19:42] <mirek2> alright
[19:42] <alexanderWilms> Me and him were both late
[19:43] <mirek2> :) I know
[19:43] <mirek2> Astron attended the call this week, I suppose?
[19:43] <alexanderWilms> Yes
[19:44] <mirek2> ok
[19:44] <alexanderWilms> * UI / design update (Astron)
[19:44] <alexanderWilms>         + gradient-fill for cells:
[19:44] <alexanderWilms>                 + review: better for whole areas rather than cells
[19:44] <alexanderWilms>                 + interoperability issues ?
[19:44] <alexanderWilms>         + borders query:
[19:44] <alexanderWilms>                 + we have to pick sensible default options / settings
[19:44] <alexanderWilms>         + Android icon underway with Alex's help
[19:44] <alexanderWilms>         + work ongoing improving icon themes too
[19:44] <alexanderWilms>         + options reduction ongoing interest
[19:44] <alexanderWilms> AI:	+ new git repository needed for UI stuff 'original-artwork' (Norbert)
[19:45] <alexanderWilms> LO is crashing on me all the time now :/
[19:46] <alexanderWilms> Do we have an agenda for today?
[19:48] <mirek2> hm... we should finish the font and Options analysis
[19:49] <alexanderWilms> Should we start with the fonts?
[19:49] <mirek2> sure
[19:50] <mirek2> how soon is Astron coming?
[19:50] <mirek2> did he say anything?
[19:51] <alexanderWilms> 19:29:52
[19:51] <alexanderWilms> afk for then next ten mins
[19:51] <mirek2> ok
[19:52] <mirek2> is it ok if I take this time to read through the last chat?
[19:52] <alexanderWilms> Sure
[20:07] == astron247 [~frootzowr@dslb-188-106-203-066.pools.arcor-ip.net] has joined #libreoffice-design
[20:07] <astron247> hi again
[20:09] <alexanderWilms> hi
[20:09] <astron247> have you discussed anything yet?
[20:09] <alexanderWilms> nope
[20:09] <astron247> okay.
[20:09] <alexanderWilms> Mirek's reading the log
[20:10] <astron247> well, then ill start with an overview over this weeks esc call...
[20:10] <mirek2> I'm back
[20:10] <mirek2> but go ahead
[20:12] <astron247> * we discussed the gradients in cells idea again
[20:12] <astron247> * i didnt have any input on michael stahls border ui question (yet)
[20:12] <astron247> * norbert will open a libreoffice-original-artwork repo
[20:13] <astron247> * there's apparently a bit of interest in the options rework (did anyone start developing on that..?)
[20:13] <astron247> that should be it.
[20:13] <astron247> michael asked if were "happy". are weß
[20:13] <astron247> ^ß^?
[20:14] <alexanderWilms> happy?
[20:14] <astron247> japp
[20:15] <alexanderWilms> Did he specify in what way?
[20:16] <astron247> it was quite a general question. i guess he mean to ask if we need some of resources. dunno, though.
[20:16] <astron247> i kind of replied that were too few core people (i.e. 3)
[20:17] <mirek2> I agree
[20:17] <mirek2> do you think we should work on promotion?
[20:18] <mirek2> the elementary project, for example, designs purely on deviant art
[20:18] <mirek2> which means that they have a good design audience
[20:19] <alexanderWilms> Couldn't hurt
[20:19] <astron247> i am kind of wary of deviant art (i dont really like the site) – but yeah, it somehow does get a high-quality artistic audience
[20:20] <mirek2> is there a way to embed externally-hosted image files on the wiki?
[20:21] <mirek2> that way, we could have an audience on DeviantArt, but still have images available on the wiki without duplication
[20:21] <astron247> i dont think there is a way to do that yet
[20:22] <mirek2> do you think it's something worth pursuing?
[20:22] <mirek2> it might also lift some hosting weight off Document Foundation's shoulders...
[20:22] <alexanderWilms> I think the time's better spent improving LO
[20:23] <alexanderWilms> I'll be back in a few secs
[20:23] <mirek2> ok
[20:25] <astron247> okay. how far were you with two with the options discussion?
[20:26] <mirek2> as far as you can see on the wiki
[20:26] <astron247> ah right
[20:26] <mirek2> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/Analyses/Global_Options
[20:27] == alexanderWilms [~alexander@dslb-188-101-015-244.pools.arcor-ip.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
[20:28] <mirek2> about getting more designers, perhaps it would be worth the effort to clean up the wiki a bit...
[20:28] <mirek2> e.g. https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Visual_Elements has a lot of rough edges
[20:28] == alexanderwilms3 [~alexander@dslb-188-101-015-244.pools.arcor-ip.net] has joined #libreoffice-design
[20:29] <alexanderwilms3> back
[20:29] <astron247> yeah, its quire a lot on this page
[20:29] <mirek2> alexanderwilms3: what I wrote:
[20:29] <mirek2> [20:28] <mirek2> about getting more designers, perhaps it would be worth the effort to clean up the wiki a bit... [20:28] <mirek2> e.g. https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Visual_Elements has a lot of rough edges
[20:29] <astron247> ^quire^quite
[20:30] <mirek2> most, if not all, the pages have a "This page is still under construction - so please ask any open questions on our Design mailing list." label
[20:31] <mirek2> perhaps we should look through them sometime
[20:32] <astron247> the label is right. we'd need to do something like that...
[20:33] <mirek2> after we finish the current projects, though, probably...
[20:33] <astron247> right
[20:33] <astron247> that sounds a bit like "never" though
[20:34] <mirek2> :) well, we could start now if it's something that either of you would like to do
[20:35] <mirek2> I would prefer to work on fonts and options now, though
[20:35] <astron247> just noting what it sounds like. hopefully we can use the cofnerence for some discussions on what needs to e done
[20:35] <mirek2> yes
[20:35] <astron247> btw. i recently tried to find this page: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/User_Experience/Tools
[20:35] <astron247> and couldnt find any links to it...
[20:36] <astron247> (i am pulling this out of my browsers history right now)
[20:36] <mirek2> yes, sorry, we decided to remove the links on the account of it containing a ton of tools that we don't actually use
[20:36] <mirek2> the page could be quite daunting for people who want to get involved
[20:37] <mirek2> is the page useful to you?
[20:37] <astron247> hm, i specifically knew the colourblindness filters were listed thers
[20:37] <astron247> ^rs^re
[20:38] <astron247> and also, we do use a number of those tools. (and should use more of them)
[20:39] <mirek2> we use Gimp and Inkscape, which are mentioned on the Design team homepage
[20:41] <mirek2> which tools do you think we should use more?
[20:41] <astron247> right. i personally also use pencil and git and would like to use the wiki help pages at some point
[20:42] <astron247> the fidelity matrix could be a useful self-evaluation tool (although ive never used it and dont really plan to)
[20:43] <mirek2> I think the fidelity matrix is too complex and subjective to use
[20:43] <mirek2> a mockup's fidelity is usually visible from a mockup anyway
[20:43] <mirek2> we mention pencil on the homepage
[20:44] <astron247> yeah, but havign the exact status might help against a few people jumping to conclusions about the readiness of a design early
[20:45] == alexanderW [~alexander@dslb-188-101-015-244.pools.arcor-ip.net] has joined #libreoffice-design
[20:45] == alexanderwilms3 [~alexander@dslb-188-101-015-244.pools.arcor-ip.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
[20:45] <astron247> anyway, i wont try to argue for the fidelity matrix to much. while there are a few nice ideas i think its rather overblown (as you said, too)
[20:45] <astron247> having an expiry date is also a nice idea but i am not usre it that useful
[20:46] <astron247> ^usre^sure
[20:47] <mirek2> well, for us, the tentative design should really be the highest fidelity we have
[20:47] <mirek2> and the proposals' fidelity doesn't really matter much
[20:47] <astron247> well i kind of share christophs concerns that thats not always useful
[20:48] <mirek2> what is not always useful? proposals?
[20:48] <astron247> (i mean high-fidelity mockups)
[20:49] <mirek2> alright...
[20:50] <mirek2> anyway, I would like to streamline https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/User_Experience/Tools
[20:50] <astron247> because for the most part it will look different on different platforms and configurations...
[20:50] <astron247> okay. ill take this as a task then.
[20:51] <mirek2> you'll take care of it?
[20:51] <astron247> yes.
[20:51] <mirek2> ok, great :)
[20:51] <mirek2> oh, and please remove the introductory paragraph at the top
[20:51] <astron247> right.
[20:52] <mirek2> anyway, could we do the font analysis now?
[20:52] <astron247> yes. that sounds good.
[20:52] <mirek2> ok https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/Wishlists/Fonts
[20:53] <alexanderW> Should we vote for each font?
[20:53] <mirek2> btw, we might also want to consider https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/Whiteboards/Font_Repository_Integration now
[20:53] <mirek2> I wouldn't vote, but rather discuss
[20:54] <mirek2> as for the font repository -- I visited Kendy on Tuesday, where I proposed the whole idea
[20:54] <mirek2> it would probably integrate with Google Web Fonts
[20:54] <astron247> oh nice
[20:54] <mirek2> since that's probably the biggest FOSS online repository out there
[20:54] <astron247> but are you sure that fonts should really always be installed into users systems?
[20:55] <mirek2> they would have an option
[20:55] <astron247> (also: i think not all google web fonts are under an opensource license -- but maybe im wrong there)
[20:55] <mirek2> I think they are
[20:55] <astron247> about having the option: yes. but i would just download them and cache them for later usage
[20:56] <alexanderW> Is there something like ~/.fonts on Windows and Mac OS?
[20:56] <mirek2> I had the same conversation with Kendy
[20:56] <astron247> dont think so
[20:56] <alexanderW> Or should they be installed system-wide?
[20:57] <astron247> i think thats what the mockup File:Fonts.png wants to tell us, no?
[20:57] <mirek2> hard disks have a lot of space, and given how many open-source fonts get used in documents, it's unlikely to make a huge dent in your storage
[20:58] <astron247> yes.
[20:58] <mirek2> plus, most users already tend to use about 10 of the plethora of fonts they have installed by default (not that that's an excuse)
[20:58] <alexanderW> It would save the fonts locally. Either sytem-wide or per user
[20:59] <mirek2> I would save them system-wide
[20:59] <alexanderW> Would require root privileges
[20:59] <astron247> i think it should just cache them in ~/.local/.libreoffice. installing them would seem to be too much hassle for just viewing a document
[21:00] <mirek2> it's not just viewing a document
[21:00] <mirek2> it's also editing it
[21:00] <mirek2> for shared documents
[21:00] <astron247> i know.
[21:00] <astron247> but if you got the fonts cached why wouldnt you be able to work with them too?
[21:01] <astron247> maybe the info bar could help here again though.
[21:01] <astron247> it could show font download progress and offer to install the whole family
[21:02] <astron247> (because if youre just viewing a document you probably will only install the bare necessities)
[21:02] <mirek2> I would like the whole process to be frictionless
[21:02] <astron247> instead of install i mean download
[21:02] <astron247> mirek: what do you mean?
[21:04] <mirek2> I don't want there to always be a distraction when a user needs to work with a document with a non-installed font
[21:04] <mirek2> the user should be busy working on the document, not picking which font to download
[21:05] <mirek2> the best thing to do is to always have a good default
[21:05] <astron247> what do you think of as a distraction=
[21:05] <astron247> ==?
[21:07] <mirek2> being indecisive myself, I know that getting a choice between keeping a font on the disk or keeping it temporarily would take me some time
[21:08] <mirek2> each time
[21:08] <mirek2> I think this is better to handle with a good default
[21:09] <astron247> anyway my idea would be:
[21:09] <astron247> * download the necessary fonts automatically when the user views or edits a document that uses downloadable fonts (show a progress bar for the download maybe)
[21:09] <astron247> * showing an infobar that offers you to install the font families used in the document (which of course you could close)
[21:10] <alexanderW> Sounds good to me
[21:10] <astron247> mirek: it wouldnt be so much keeping them temporarily as it would be keeping them around just for libreoffice
[21:10] <astron247> (you could cache them indefinitely)
[21:10] <mirek2> isn't it better to just install them then?
[21:10] <mirek2> they would take up as much disk space
[21:11] <mirek2> and the user wouldn't be bothered with a complicated choice
[21:11] <astron247> no, because doing that by default would always annoy the user with a password prompt for the admin/root account
[21:11] <mirek2> are you sure there's no way around that?
[21:12] <alexanderW> Would be a security risk if there was a workaround, don't you think?
[21:12] <astron247> there is. you could install a background service that always starts with root privileges as firefox/chrome do for updates on windows
[21:13] <astron247> alex is right in that its hard to secure and also, it would probably not integrate with linux package managers
[21:13] <mirek2> well, in any case, offering a password prompt is less of a distraction than offering a choice
[21:13] <mirek2> choices can take a lot of time to make
[21:13] <astron247> ???
[21:13] <mirek2> a password entry is automatic
[21:13] <astron247> you can just ignore the infobar
[21:14] <mirek2> dismissing the infobar is also a choice
[21:14] <astron247> you can keep it open and ignore it :)
[21:15] <mirek2> the actions in the infobar should, imho, also be availabe somewhere else in the UI
[21:15] <mirek2> still, ignoring it is a choice
[21:15] <astron247> uh no
[21:15] <astron247> many people will just not see it at all
[21:16] <mirek2> if you feel like the infobar will be undistracting and invisible, what's the point of even having it?
[21:16] <mirek2> if the user won't notice
[21:17] <astron247> right. so, there are people that dont notice anything that happens on their screens.
[21:18] <astron247> and those can safely ignore the infobar
[21:18] <mirek2> I disagree
[21:18] <mirek2> in any case, that is not the point
[21:18] <astron247> (and still enjoy their document with glorious opensource fonts)
[21:19] <astron247> right.
[21:19] <astron247> i would like to argue with ux-control then...
[21:19] <mirek2> that doesn't really make much sense to me: why would the user take notice enough of the first infobar to download the fonts, but not enough to notice the following one?
[21:20] <astron247> the download would happen automatically. all that first infobar would display is the prgoress and a maybe a canel button
[21:20] <astron247> +c
[21:21] <mirek2> I've discussed this with Kendy as well -- we can't do automatic download, since we don't know the connection speeds & costs
[21:21] <astron247> ^prgo^prog
[21:21] <mirek2> otherwise I would agree with you
[21:21] <astron247> well, thats what the cancel button is for
[21:22] <mirek2> no, I don't think LibreOffice should download things automatically without permission
[21:23] <alexanderW> So maybe  infobar with a caption 'Requires additional fonts'
[21:23] <alexanderW> A button leading to Fonts.png
[21:23] <alexanderW> the mockup, I mean
[21:23] <mirek2> downloading something without permission is a pretty big ux-control violation, imho
[21:25] <astron247> hehe. you wanted to install the fonts without express permission five minutes ago :)
[21:26] <mirek2> well, they would be on the disk anyway, only in different parts
[21:27] <mirek2> the only difference would be that the fonts could be used by different applications
[21:27] <astron247> sure. but the different parts of the disk do count
[21:27] <mirek2> I think there's a big difference
[21:28] <mirek2> for example
[21:28] <astron247> for one, you need no special rights, for the other, you need admin rights
[21:28] <astron247> (and the fonts are suddenly instaleld for all users
[21:28] <astron247> )
[21:28] <mirek2> a number of people use a portable internet connection
[21:29] <mirek2> which tends to have a data limit
[21:29] <astron247> that can usually be detected.
[21:29] <mirek2> simply opening a document to have your limit automatically crossed has to be pretty annoying
[21:30] <mirek2> I don't think we could detect it accurately enough
[21:30] <astron247> i agree, we shouldnt autonatically download while on 3g
[21:30] <astron247> so, you say, that not showing the documents right the first time round is the sane default then?
[21:31] <mirek2> it doesn't apply just to 3G, though
[21:31] <mirek2> astron247: yes, because...
[21:31] <mirek2> a) the document will load incorrectly at first anyway; it will take time to download the fonts
[21:32] <mirek2> b) in most cases, we probably won't be able to download all the fonts, so we will need to inform the user and he will need to make the proper decision then
[21:34] <alexanderW> [Download additional fonts required to display this document correctly?      (Yes...) (No) X]
[21:35] <alexanderW> Like this?
[21:35] <astron247> sure, we can do this. but it also means the feature is completely worthless to everyone who doesnt see the info bar.
[21:35] <astron247> (~60% of people?)
[21:36] <astron247> thus, its not really worth pusruing then
[21:36] <mirek2> in cases where we aren't able to download the fonts, either because they were not found online or because the person is offline, we should still show the infobar
[21:36] <mirek2> astron247: the feature is more than just an infobar
[21:37] <mirek2> 1) it will allow users to install fonts from Google Web Fonts as well (for his own documents, not just for compatibility)
[21:37] <astron247> okay, but the infobar will be the primary vehicle
[21:37] <mirek2> 2) the functionality in the infobar should be accessible from elsewhere in the UI
[21:38] <alexanderW> A button leading to the dialog?
[21:38] <mirek2> btw, it's not even decided that we should use an infobar; it's just a part of my proposal (which I plan to expand)
[21:39] <astron247> but the infobar makes lots of sense (unlike a modal alert like in alex's proposal)
[21:40] <mirek2> I actually planned to add something similar for the "More info..." button
[21:40] <mirek2> a dialog where the user could choose which fonts to download
[21:40] <alexanderW> After seeing Mireks proposal I thought it'd make more sense to show his infobar at first and acess the dialog trough it
[21:40] <astron247> a modal alert is fine, as long as it doesnt pop up automatically. that exactly is the beauty of infobars
[21:41] <astron247> alex: +1
[21:41] <mirek2> yes -- that's what I plan to add as well
[21:41] <astron247> although i am not completely sure we really need as much control as the modal alert offers
[21:42] <mirek2> agreed
[21:42] <alexanderW> no checkboxes in front of each font?
[21:43] <astron247> well, thats a case where making a decision doesnt make sense to the user
[21:44] <astron247> "hum... why do i need to pick now if all those fonts are needed for the document?"
[21:44] <mirek2> I would have a checkbox in front of each font, just because, as someone mentioned on the list, there could be a font that someone really doesn't want
[21:44] <mirek2> but I would select all by default, of course
[21:44] <alexanderW> Why would one want a specific font?
[21:44] <alexanderW> *wouldn't
[21:44] <alexanderW> scratch that
[21:44] <alexanderW> Why would one not install a specific font
[21:44] <astron247> no. its a good question
[21:45] <mirek2> yes, good question
[21:46] <astron247> and there's two answers:
[21:46] <astron247> a) the file is too large (maybe 30% of people will want to decide based on that)
[21:46] <astron247> b) they dislike the font (maybe 1% of will know and dislike the font already and actually care about fonts too)
[21:46] <mirek2> as someone mentioned on the list, there's a possibility that some of the fonts aren't even used in the document
[21:46] <astron247> how would that happen?
[21:47] <astron247> (i havent read tha)
[21:47] <astron247> +t
[21:47] <mirek2> the font is part of a style, but one that's not actually used in the document
[21:47] <astron247> also: how would the user know which fonts arent used in the document beforehand?
[21:47] <astron247> actually thats a question libo can solve, but the user cannot
[21:48] <alexanderW> Yes, LO should only offer used fonts
[21:48] <mirek2> alright, I suppose I agree
[21:49] <mirek2> in any case, we got really sidetracked
[21:50] <alexanderW> at least we have some kind of vision now
[21:50] <mirek2> this is something we should discuss after we have all the proposals at https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/Whiteboards/Font_Repository_Integration
[21:50] <mirek2> right now, we should really get through https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/Wishlists/Fonts
[21:51] <astron247> okay.
[21:51] <astron247> we can agree on open sans, i guess?
[21:51] <mirek2> yes
[21:51] <alexanderW> yes
[21:51] <astron247> do we want to include all weights or just bold and regular?
[21:52] <alexanderW> all :)
[21:52] <mirek2> yes, all
[21:52] <astron247> (if youve worked with more extensive font families, you might know that it can be a bit confusing occasionally...)
[21:52] <alexanderW> Include ALL the weights
[21:52] <astron247> okay... then "all" it is
[21:53] <mirek2> :) great
[21:53] <alexanderW> It is, but I think it's worth it
[21:53] <mirek2> I think so as well
[21:53] <alexanderW> Open Sans Light and then making it bold for example
[21:54] <alexanderW> Can't libreoffice group them as one entry and list the available weights in the font dialog?
[21:54] <astron247> not yet. you should open a bug for that i suppose
[21:55] <astron247> anyway... okay... "ubuntu" is a tough call, i guess. most other linux vendors will hate shipping that ... for it unfortunately bears the name of their competitior...
[21:55] <alexanderW> alright
[21:55] <mirek2> I don't think other linux vendors will mind
[21:55] <mirek2> it's a quality FOSS font
[21:56] <alexanderW> Maybe ask Michael, Caolan etc?
[21:56] <astron247> okay.
[21:56] <mirek2> carrying it should be an advantage for any Linux distro
[21:56] <mirek2> ok, ask, but I don't think it's a problem
[21:57] <astron247> + i personally am not convinced by it - it's a bit too quirky to work with it, i think (just an opinion)
[21:57] <astron247> + it is really extensive, especially the arabic support is a great addition
[21:57] <alexanderW> Should I mail them?
[21:57] <mirek2> sure, go ahead
[21:58] <astron247> how do you feel about ubuntu otherwise?
[21:59] <alexanderW> I like it, it looks a bit special
[21:59] <mirek2> yes -- it's unique, yet readable
[22:00] <astron247> okay... so, it is a candidate barring the name being too problematic
[22:00] <astron247> "vollkorn"
[22:00] <alexanderW> I hate the name
[22:00] <mirek2> I would skip any that have a "no" under Usable under Windows
[22:00] <alexanderW> Probably not an issue for non-German users
[22:01] <astron247> i love the name :)
[22:01] <astron247> (vollkorn means "wholegrain")
[22:01] <alexanderW> Weißbrot all the way
[22:01] <mirek2> :) thanks for the explanation
[22:02] <mirek2> I also like the name -- the font really looks like it sounds
[22:03] <astron247> anyway, i really like the font and ... i hope we can reconsider it at some point when theres a new version
[22:03] <mirek2> I hope so, too
[22:03] <astron247> ill skip alegreya and neuton
[22:03] <mirek2> I like the font as well
[22:03] <astron247> and come to "dancing script"
[22:03] <mirek2> I would vote against it
[22:04] <astron247> (which is not usable under small sizes, but likely no script font is)
[22:04] <mirek2> I don't think we need a display font
[22:04] <alexanderW> For slideshows?
[22:04] <mirek2> I would rather bundle well-designed fonts that work under all sizes
[22:04] <astron247> i am half-pro, because we really dont have anything like it currently. otoh, i would never ever use it myself
[22:04] <alexanderW> It's similar to oleo script
[22:05] <alexanderW> And if it only supports Latin it a no-go anyways
[22:05] <alexanderW> or not?
[22:05] <mirek2> Roboto, Ubuntu, Open Sans -- they're all incredible for titles, but equally good for long paragraphs
[22:06] <astron247> alex: youre right
[22:07] <mirek2> yes
[22:07] <astron247> mirek: none of them are script fonts, in fact theyre all sans-serif
[22:08] <mirek2> yes, I simply mean that they can work well in any situation, so I don't think there's a need for niche fonts
[22:09] <astron247> okay.
[22:09] <astron247> "source sans"
[22:09] <mirek2> I'm all for it
[22:09] <astron247> me too
[22:10] <alexanderW> Same here
[22:10] <alexanderW> Astron, what's your take regarding niche fonts?
[22:11] <astron247> i think, theres a place for them. however, some niches are too small to be filled by the default font selection. however, a script font is a niche that i would think would eg be larg enough
[22:11] <astron247> +e
[22:12] <mirek2> ok, PT Sans?
[22:13] <astron247> i like it rather much
[22:13] <alexanderW> looks a bit like Ubuntu
[22:14] <alexanderW> I'm neutral
[22:14] <astron247> really? i dont think so at all
[22:14] <astron247> wait. im retracting that statement. it does look a bit like ubuntu
[22:15] <alexanderW> I mean that e.g that the top left of a capital P is a bit rounded
[22:15] <astron247> its not quite as rounded as ff dax or so though
[22:15] <mirek2> On first look, I like the font, but I have to say I've never actually used it.
[22:16] <mirek2> I would be for it, though.
[22:16] <alexanderW> I covers a lot of scripts
[22:17] <astron247> well, two, anyway.
[22:17] <mirek2> so yes?
[22:18] <alexanderW> I guess
[22:19] <astron247> also, if we could additionally include pt serif, we would have a well-fitting together sans/serif (and maybe mono) family
[22:19] <astron247> yes from me too.
[22:19] <astron247> okay. the PT Sans
[22:19] <astron247> ^the^then
[22:20] <mirek2> btw, Astron, how does the OFL version differ somehow from the Paratype version?
[22:20] <mirek2> only in license?
[22:22] <astron247> i think the ofl version is slightly updated/deliberately different, but cant say exactly
[22:22] <mirek2> ok
[22:22] <mirek2> btw, Google Web Fonts lists it under the SIL license
[22:22] <astron247> odd
[22:23] <mirek2> if we wanted to integrate this font with the web repository, I hope there would be no problem in using the SIL version, right?
[22:24] <astron247> well, using the OFL version would be preferable to using the custom-licensed versions
[22:25] <astron247> i just couldnt find the ofl versions of pt serif and mono
[22:26] <mirek2> I haven't researched font licenses much -- is there something about the SIL or Paratype license that would be undesirable for us?
[22:26] <mirek2> or is OFL preferrable just for consistency sake?
[22:28] <astron247> see my note at the bottom of the page about the paratype license
[22:28] <astron247> apparently its not a problem (christian? said that)
[22:28] <astron247> (on the list)
[22:30] <mirek2> :) I just realized that what I've been calling SIL is actually OFL, sorry
[22:30] <mirek2> https://www.google.com/webfonts has both PT Sans and PT Serif listed as OFL-license
[22:30] <mirek2> +d
[22:30] <astron247> you said so
[22:31] <mirek2> so... everyone for PT Serif?
[22:31] <astron247> i trust google they know why they write that ;)
[22:31] <mirek2> :)
[22:32] <astron247> okay... id like to end it here. ill vote against roboto and for charis... sorry bye.
[22:32] == astron247 [~frootzowr@dslb-188-106-203-066.pools.arcor-ip.net] has left #libreoffice-design []
[22:32] <mirek2> let's finish next time? I'd really like Roboto to be included
[22:33] <mirek2> I really wonder why Astron's against it
[22:33] <alexanderW> dunno
[22:34] <mirek2> should we end the chat?
[22:35] <alexanderW> should we vote on both remaining fonts?
[22:36] <mirek2> I would keep that for the next chat
[22:36] <mirek2> I won't let go of Roboto without a good reason :)
[22:36] <mirek2> to not include it
[22:36] <alexanderW> alright
[22:37] <alexanderW> I'm not sure about Roboto, but Charis looks pretty good
[22:37] <alexanderW> Could you upload the log?
[22:37] <mirek2> ok
[22:37] <mirek2> take care
[22:38] <alexanderW> sure. Bye
    Retrieved from "https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/index.php?title=Design/Meetings/2012-09-15&oldid=122783"