OpenUserJS.org
OpenUserJS.org copied to clipboard
OpenUserJS
Use different font for headers (with full Unicode support)
Hello, please, consider to use different font for headers used in description of scripts. Actual one doesn't have even diacritics letters.
Example: (look at "Změny ve verzích") https://openuserjs.org/scripts/vvelda/Export_kontakt%C5%AF_z_Email.cz
EDITED
Welcome and thanks for the report.
please, consider to use different font for headers used in description of scripts. Actual one doesn't have even diacritics letters.
Example: (look at "Změny ve verzích") https://openuserjs.org/scripts/vvelda/Export_kontakt%C5%AF_z_Email.cz#zm-ny-ve-verz-ch-
Only issue I see though is your ě does have the diacritic here. The font-family ordering is here via Firebug as "Squada One","Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif and each of those is showing your ě with diacritical mark for me.
- I believe the first step would be to figure out your issue is to see what your user agent is so I can be on the same browser. e.g. http://whatsmyuseragent.com/ and have you post that string.
- Screenshots are always a good thing... in a few I'll add mine to this post... I have to do that in a different profile as GitHub doesn't like my security for uploads in this one.
- Are you running any Add-on/Extension that may block font downloads? e.g. Clean profile?
- Check your system for "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica and Arial... if Windows then it's probably a .ttf or .otf file... each Linux distro is different with fonts but X11 should have a list somewhere... same with OSX.
- The last one is usually web defaults and defined in your browsers settings/options... so they should have your ě.
In the meantime I will add a recheck of "Squada One" to my TODO list as google occasionally updates that font. Their Unicode letters are a bit bulky here but I'll see if that's been updated as well.
Please let us know if there can be any further assistance or if you have any other suggestions.
- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64) AppleWebKit/534.57.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1.7 Safari/534.57.2 (top left)
- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:44.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/44.0 (bottom left)
- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/48.0.2564.116 Safari/537.36 (top right)
- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/48.0.2564.82 Safari/537.36 OPR/35.0.2066.37 (middle right)
- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:42.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.39 (bottom right)
PASS Diacritical marks all present.
- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:42.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.39 (top left)
- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/48.0.2564.97 Safari/537.36 (top right)
- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.9) Gecko/20100101 Goanna/2.0 Firefox/38.9 PaleMoon/26.0.3 (bottom left)
- Opera/9.80 (X11; Linux x86_64) Presto/2.12.388 Version/12.16 (bottom right)
PASS Diacritical marks all present.
Hash on current static "Squada One":
$ sha256sum SquadaOne-Regular.ttf
7fb11ce5541246c83ebc3640543c9f53de186964bcbbf184c1a00cb9ec6cc457 SquadaOne-Regular.ttf
Hash on current remote downloaded "Squada One" via redirect:
$ sha256sum SquadaOne-Regular.ttf
7fb11ce5541246c83ebc3640543c9f53de186964bcbbf184c1a00cb9ec6cc457 SquadaOne-Regular.ttf
PASS No update from prior update of #827
@VVelda
Actual one doesn't have even diacritics letters.
Okay... so did some investigation and your sentence was a little ambiguous at first and was steering me in a different direction... but you are correct in the context that SquadaOne-Regular.ttf doesn't have as many characters as Arial for example which is why your ě is as I mentioned with:
Their Unicode letters are a bit bulky here
... and is because it's falling back to "Helvetica Neue" for that letter.
Your mission, should you decide to accept, is to find a font that is similar to SquadaOne-Regular with spacing and shape or contribute to that font repository that I just added into our dispersed statics in the README.md and add every Unicode character there. ;) e.g. I would suggest opening an issue on that repository and see if they'll do it... if not... perhaps you can... if not... wait... if not... wait again. :)
@sizzlemctwizzle Your mission is also to find a font that is similar to Squada-One with spacing (especially horizontal fit) and shape. I know you like that font but it hasn't been updated in more than a year... and is now proving to be a visual distraction in the UI which is the real issue here.
As far as myself I'm labeling this as later, enhancement, and tracking upstream... it's not completely critical to UI interaction and there is the fall back to the next font family name.
If I come by a font that is similar that has more Unicode characters (I really don't know of any font that has them all personally) that is similiar I'll drop in some linkage here... this is one of those things that needs developers out there to assist creators.
P.S. Font should be open-source and has to have no restrictions on redistribution... and technically no restrictions at all (example SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE). We have no issues with giving attribution but FOSS is the general goal of OUJS... let us aim to keep it that way please. :)... recommend .ttf as well as preferably woff, woff2, eot, svg fonts included but not completely necessary as they can be transformed like "Squada One".
Here's an example at http://allfont.net/download/pt-sans-narrow/ (unconfirmed if it has as many Unicode characters as needed but is http://scripts.sil.org/OFL) EDIT: Closer weight match at http://allfont.net/download/pt-sans-narrow-bold/ but same... although would be nice to control that via CSS.
Refs:
- CSS
letter-spacingusing negative values
@Martii Thanks for reply.
First sentence isn't ambiguous, let's see (all of the letters are missing in Squada One font):
č, ď, ě, ň, ř, š, ť, ž, ů, ĉ, ĝ, ĥ, ĵ, ŝ, ŭ, š, ž, ž, š, č, ć, đ, ā, ē, ī, ū, č, š, ž, ļ, ķ, ņ, ģ, ő, ű, ą, ć, ę, ł, ń,ś, ź, ż, ă, ș, ț, č, ď, ň, ŕ, š, ť, ž, ş, ğ, ă, đ, ơ, ư
That is Czech, Estonian, Croatian, Latvian, Hungarian, Polish, Rumunian, Slovak, Turkish and Vietnamese. That is a huge number of languages, so it is totally unusable font for global site.
And it look that PT Sand Narrow have all ot them, so it's truly better choice.
@sizzlemctwizzle Assuming we go with that font I finally got it downloaded after a series of annoying captchas... but they've added a non-commercial restriction on the download of it... so I'm not sure it would apply. You'll need to make that decision to figure it out.
@VVelda We'll have to discuss this further... and we still need some assistance finding one that is suitable. One option isn't enough.
There are some language barriers here as your sentence structure is difficult to comprehend as well as the placement of what you were asking for... but I understand that en-US isn't everywhere. Luckily I have training in world markets so I try my best to be patient and courteous. I appreciate your patience as well.
@jesus2099 Asking you to come into this fold as I would like to know from your expertise how this particular font change would affect Chinese on the site... or if you have a recommendation on a suitable replacement for the header fonts besides the browser/operating system stock ones.
For info, the Vietnamese characters are (those not covered by basic latin panes):
ảạ ắằẳẵặ ấầẩẫậ ẻẹ ếềểễệ ỉị ỏọ ớờởỡợ ốồổỗộ ủụ ứừửữự ỳỷỹỵ đ ẢẠ ẮẰẲẴẶ ẤẦẨẪẬ ẺẸ ẾỀỂỄỆ ỈỊ ỎỌ ỚỜỞỠỢ ỐỒỔỖỘ ỦỤ ỨỪỬỮỰ ỲỶỸỴ Đ
They don’t seem covered by http://allfont.net/download/pt-sans-narrow-bold/ which, I think, might be focusing on European scripts.
But I don’t really mind as the character fallback is usually OK for me, I had not notice anything annoying.
I have never really looked into finding alternative fonts to what the OS is providing, so I don’t know of any good font repository, etc. But taking a font, like this one, that covers more characters cannot be bad, I think. :)
@jesus2099 Awesome and yikes... thank you for that explanation and helping out. I'll have to do some more digging but other higher priority issues are in my queue for now... just thought I'd take a respite from the other issue research and see what is really needed here.
@VVelda Your example of:
č, ď, ě, ň, ř, š, ť, ž, ů, ĉ, ĝ, ĥ, ĵ, ŝ, ŭ, š, ž, ž, š, č, ć, đ, ā, ē, ī, ū, č, š, ž, ļ, ķ, ņ, ģ, ő, ű, ą, ć, ę, ł, ń,ś, ź, ż, ă, ș, ț, č, ď, ň, ŕ, š, ť, ž, ş, ğ, ă, đ, ơ, ư
... is missing ơ, ư in both PT Sans Narrow and PT Sans Bold from above... so that may disqualify it according to your criteria.
What about OpenSans – it's look like it's have all diacritics including Vietnamese. It is licensed under Apache licence, so it is FOSS, but I don't know if it is suitable...
Still, PT Sans > Squada One in Unicode support.
@VVelda
Remember it has to be narrow and similar to SquadaOne... I'm about to head afk for now but I'll look at it's kerning and shape tomorrow'ish. I'm also guessing that that is probably similar to sans-serif which is OS derived... so it might not be much of change. Besides being a feature of the site sizzle does have some fondness for the SquadaOne font... so I'd like to maintain at least a similar appearance. The narrowness has proven to be a benefit to the site but also one hindrance that I overrode in the CSS for some notifications.
bootstrap is working on some major changes too which could affect presentation of the site but it is not ready yet.
Plus we have certain portions of the community going "gung-ho" on svg now for icons which will complicate some things. I don't think that sect realizes svg isn't a total answer... not to mention the size of svg vs. woff2 fonts.
The "OpenUserJS" in the header and footer can stay SquadaOne but what is being asked here is a bit more than the User Content area which contains the headers you mentioned. It's also the "Bread crumbs" for the Author and Script name at the top of script homepages, Discussion headers, etc.
Misc note:
As I mentioned elsewhere... the font does show what "English" letters are Unicode which can be helpful for detection of those.
No changes on font source detected.
Hmmm this is interesting on dev station (both GH and OUJS)... "витас" vs "витас" ... this is the same content but italicized витас ... and that's sans-serif fonts inclusive. Time to try another distro.
- PASS macOS 10.14.3 with Fx 65.0.1 and Safari 12.0.3
- FAIL ROSA R11 with Fx (VM and actual... this is worrysome)
- FAIL Debian 9 with Chromium ~~72.0.3626.96~~ 72.0.3626.122 (VM)
- PASS Debian 9 with Fx 60.5.1esr (VM) :confused:
- FAIL Kubuntu 18.04.2 with all installed browsers (actual)
-
FAIL Kubuntu 18.04.2 with Tor Browser 8.0.6 (presuming my endpoint is the same between the requests to goo and GH... claims
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/60.0) - FAIL Win10 with Chrome 73.0.3683.75 and Edge 18.17763 (VM... never had actual and never will)
- FAIL Win7 with IE 11 and Fx 65.0.2 (VM... don't have actual any more)
- FAIL WinXP Pro with Fx 52.9.0 and Chrome 49.0.2623.112 (actual also via RDP)
Testing italicized versions below of: И и
HTML entities (uppercase then lowercase hex): И и :-1: HTML entities (uppercase then lowercase decimal): И и :-1: HTML entities (uppercase then lowercas abstract named): И и :-1: Unicode direct paste: И и :-1:
Seems LibreOffice renders it correctly so doesn't appear to be a system font issue... Clipboard content shows the correct lowercase character on copy/paste too...
Hmm well I'm mostly out of test platforms here... Anyone with actual Windows (not a VM or any other remote) see this clipped image for the text above?
I'll attempt to check an actual Windows box if I get a chance in about a week with any luck when I visit that site.
@Martii, on my Windows 7 here it looks like your capture on Vivaldi, Firefox, Internet Explorer and even Opera presto. :)
@jesus2099
Thank you! :heart: This bug is really odd. K/Ubuntu just updated Chromium to 73.0.3683.75 and it's still present. This is quite puzzling. The macOS browser settings I matched in Linux but it still has the issue (except for some browsers in Debian). I wonder how many other languages are possibly messed up besides Russian rendering. I'm slowly learning that language (and I do mean slowly) and the "u" that it is creating isn't a lower case "И".
I'll dig/query into the marked dependency a little more and see if it's doing something odd but I doubt it's even a dependency issue in node. Cc: @UziTech @styfle @wolfbeast Re: comment test and comment result
Refs:
- marked demo test (normal, oblique, bold) TEST FAIL
- commonmark.js demo test (normal, oblique, bold) TEST FAIL
- markdown-it demo test (normal, oblique, bold) TEST FAIL
-
TEST PASS
-
TEST MIXED
-
TEST FAIL
Hmm... ~~possible general markdown issue...~~ (oops wrong conclusion... reordered to match)
marked demo with html as well (normal, oblique, bold) TEST FAIL
Just my $0.02: On Windows it by default renders using the italics font of Arial, as Arial (meaning it's a different physical font file). Seems the I and BI variants don't have as many extended characters in them (550k ttf instead of 750k on my Win 7) and as such may not render all cyrillic or other non-western script flawlessly in italics mode (system fonts will prefer individual font variants in font families over transforming the "normal" variant). Actually having fewer fonts installed may work around this; if individual variants are not present it will use transforms on the base font.
Proposed solution: Provide a downloadable font instead of relying on system fonts. This will give a consistent UX regardless of OS or user agent.
@wolfbeast
Appreciate the visit very much. :)
Seems the I and BI variants
Nice catch... didn't bother checking bold with italics... has same issue here.
Proposed solution: Provide a downloadable font instead of relying on system fonts
Probably won't happen until preloading fonts is standardized a bit more... not to mention it's more bandwidth traffic intensive. Guess for now I'll see why Debian Stretch Fx ESR is okay but Chromium isn't... see if, and which, fonts they are using differently.
Would be nice if the font makers would standardize/equalize things a bit more if this is the case everywhere. I've seen your understanding before with WinXP and Win7 having different system fonts back in my CPP days.
* Goes off to ponder some more *
Probably won't happen until preloading fonts is standardized a bit more...
I'm sorry, but all current browsers do support @font-face and the woff format, AFAIK. I'm not sure what "preloading fonts" has to do with this...
If bandwidth is an issue, making sure you properly define caching parameters for static resources will prevent the fonts from being downloaded over and over -- and there are easy solutions for having fonts on a CDN, as well, if you're really suffering from a too limited quota. Heck, quotas shouldn't even have to be an issue. Many VPS providers offer unmetered connections (you pay for the port speed, not volume)...
Would be nice if the font makers would standardize/equalize things a bit more
Many font authors do not have the knowledge of or capacity for covering the entire UTF-8 space. Do you have any idea how many glyphs you're talking about here, for each and every font? Not to mention that specialized fonts often only apply to one particular type/range of script.
Do you have any idea how many glyphs you're talking about here, for each and every font?
Base fonts should cover some basics like each languages simplified alphabet. It would interesting to see Windows, or any other platform, try to sell an incomplete product in these other countries... besides you already stated there is a downloadable font somewhere that does this. ;) So why should the user be burdened with a huge download on each site when the OS could have the base fonts. Simple logic.
I'm not sure what "preloading fonts" has to do with this...
Time, bandwidth, charges, extra consideration, etc. It's the rule of the game. Anyhow... we already know how to handle caching but preloading fonts (concurrently might be the word I would choose but I'm not the majority) would be a plus. Give it whirl in a search engine sometime... I did back in October. Almost half of our initial page load is dedicated to a couple of fonts that are downloaded... that's quite a bit of time spent.
Many VPS providers offer unmetered connections
Some do, and not most, but those cost more and may eventually be needed with scalability. Regardless this is going off topic from the font issues. :smile_cat: Thanks again for your change (think 2 cents :). When I get to the TODO list item again for this in the workflow I'll see why it partially works in one browser on one platform and nobody else... seems a little odd for a documented result.
Some refs:
- https://dejavu-fonts.github.io/ ... has a good BMP set but sites can override ... this is what Debian Fx ESR is using... however when applied to Chromium site overrides it.
- http://unifoundry.com/unifont/index.html ... has a good BMP set but sites can override ... also very 1970's looking.
- https://www.google.com/get/noto/ ... everyone ready for a ~1GiB compressed download on first page visit/load? ;)
Summary still stands... Base fonts should cover some basics like each languages simplified alphabet e.g. using their terminology of Unicode Basic Multilingual Plane (BMP). I still think there's a bug in the browsers with this particular cyrillic italic character but unsure due to the abstractions of HTML/CSS. Guess I'll go do some HTML font overrides and see if reproducible.
@lelinhtinh
Appreciate the reference but it's character set is super small and doesn't even include most of the English alphabet (looks like vowels only). Even if this was "cascaded" into the font list it will still look quite a bit different than the baseline Squada One (Check out "A" for example)... so effectively no change in this issue resolution.
Thanks though for the suggestion.