Re: Default font for the web site

[Simon Albrecht]

I hope you don’t mind if I keep the poll public.

On 03.03.2016 00:29, Ophir Lifshitz wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In my opinion, a "classical" look should not be used for a site whose 
> purpose is documentation, but, a font that is very easy to read.

Perhaps one may argue about what kind of fonts is best to read, but 
certainly Garamond is perfectly well legible?

> For that reason, I am against both of these suggestions. I am fine 
> with keeping the default/Times New Roman. I would prefer prioritizing 
> other (visual or usability) enhancements to the documentation over the 
> choice of font.

I don’t think it’s a matter of prioritising. Why would one depend on the 
other?

Best, Simon

> Thanks,
> Ophir
>
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Simon Albrecht <address@hidden 
> <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
>
>     <https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4771/> made me
>     think that we really should specify a default font for our web
>     site. Else the browser will be left to choose, eventually
>     presenting the user with Times New Roman, if he hasn’t made a
>     better choice yet. Shouldn’t we avoid that?
>     If yes, the question is: which font should we use? Personally, I
>     adore Garamond, which is also sufficiently ‘classical’. But I
>     imagine it would also make sense to use the same default as we use
>     when engraving music, i.e. TeX Gyre Schola.
>
>     Best, Simon
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     bug-lilypond mailing list
>     address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>
>     https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond