- From: Tim Brown via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 14:12:27 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Hey folks! I think this is a great idea, and a good discussion. Please forgive me if this has been covered already or if I’m not fully understanding, but here are some thoughts: “Serif”, “Monospace”, “Rounded” ... Maybe the syntax for alternate styles of system UI fonts should avoid describing the fonts themselves, and instead describe their intended use — which may not necessarily map to document structure. @litherum notes that New York, a serifed face, is not the same as other serifed faces: > We also don’t want to automatically opt a bunch of websites into using New York because it is intended to be used selectively in new content. It isn’t a document font that is supposed to be used everywhere. And @Crissov notes that UI fonts do specific jobs, regardless of how they look: > If the use case is to adaptively mimic the OS look, I expect the OS to actually use these fonts for some part of its GUI. This would not be monospace but console or terminal, not serif but body or document, not rounded but caption or whatever. So, for examples: 1. Authors start using `system-ui-serif` for selective content, intending to as @jensimmons said, “blend into the OS”. Then Apple changes the typeface it uses for selective content like this from a serifed face into a bold sans. Does `system-ui-serif` then reference the bold sans? Would something like `system-ui-dramatic` (or similar) be more appropriate? 2. Let's say another operating system decided to use a palette of multiple rounded typefaces for its UI. How would a web author reference these? There would be more than one `system-ui-rounded`. What if instead authors could use something like `system-ui` and `system-ui-secondary`? -- GitHub Notification of comment by tbrown Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4107#issuecomment-528383769 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2019 14:12:28 UTC