Re: [PATCH RFC] Documentation: typography refresh

[Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1707 bytes --]

On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 12:46:16PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > At present, kernel documentation uses system serif font for body text.
> > Some people, however, objected to it and instead prefer that the
> > typography choice must be legible, consistent, and accessible (after
> > all, the audience ranges developers peeking into kernel internals to
> > ordinary users that skimmed through Documentation/admin-guide/).
> 
> So I have not seen the objections from "some people"; can you point to
> them, please?

None really but I feel that sans-serif looks aesthetically more pleasant
(to my eyes) on screen than bare Times New Roman.

> 
> > To tackle the problem, follow Wikimedia's typography refresh [1].
> > For the font choices, instead of using web fonts as in previous
> > attempt [2], use:
> >
> >   * Linux Libertine, Georgia, Times for serif (used in h1 and h2
> >     headings)
> >   * system font for sans-serif and monospace
> >
> > This allows for more readability and consistency without sacrificing
> > page load times and bandwidth, as the font choices is most likely
> > already available on many platforms.
> 
> I am open to style changes to make the docs more readable, but I am far
> from convinced that this is it.  Mixing font styles in that way will not
> be universally popular, the claim of "more readability" is
> unsubstantiated, and "consistency" seems out of place when you're making
> the fonts deliberately inconsistent...?

Because I don't have anything else to say in my mind as ideas when writing
this RFC.

Thanks.

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]