On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 12:46:16PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@xxxxxxxxx> 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:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
