

Why we're updating the default typography for Wikipedia - arvinjoar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-03-26/Op-ed

======
saurik
By 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).

------
swalling
If 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)

------
devindotcom
I 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.

------
rplst8
The bolded fonts look nasty in Chrome on Windows.

~~~
swalling
Do you have Liberation Sans or Arimo installed? Or are you on XP with
ClearType off?

------
WWLink
Typeface hipsters?

~~~
davidgerard
These are typeface hipsters:

[http://www.fastcodesign.com/3028615/the-beautiful-
wikipedia-...](http://www.fastcodesign.com/3028615/the-beautiful-wikipedia-
design-that-almost-was)
[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.

