Re: User scenarios which would benefit from streamable fonts

Good time to assign action items to Behdad :)

On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 3:05 PM Behdad Esfahbod <behdad@google.com> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> As you might have noticed, today or my last day at Google. I'm starting at
> Facebook next week, but I suppose it will be a few weeks before I figure
> out how to join this WG again.
>
> Cheers,
> behdad
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019, 2:44 PM Myles C. Maxfield <mmaxfield@apple.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 31, 2019, at 7:54 PM, Ken Lunde <lunde@adobe.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Myles,
>> >
>> > I should point out that the assumption of no feature interaction in
>> typical CJK fonts becomes an instant non-starter for Pan-CJK fonts that
>> make extensive use of the 'locl' GSUB feature to access non-default glyphs.
>> The Source Han and Noto CJK fonts serve as excellent testing fodder for
>> this. I should also mention that Adobe Fonts' (formerly Typekit) dynamic
>> augmentation preserves the 'locl' GSUB feature functionality, which means
>> that it is possible.
>>
>> Oh, when I said “fonts with many independent glyphs, like a Chinese font”
>> I meant “independent” w/r/t context-sensitive shaping, like an Arabic or
>> Indic font. Features definitely interact in CJK fonts.
>>
>> Unless I’m misunderstanding what you mean?
>>
>> >
>> > Regards...
>> >
>> > -- Ken
>> >
>> >> On Jan 31, 2019, at 3:22 PM, Myles C. Maxfield <mmaxfield@apple.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hello, everyone!
>> >>
>> >> In order to determine which strategy we should pursue for a streaming
>> font interface, we should first determine which situations we are trying to
>> improve. Once we have determined the specific scenarios that we are trying
>> to attack, we can then create a benchmark to see how bad we are right now
>> and to judge the various proposals.
>> >>
>> >> The document from Google sent a few days ago describes "Minimize
>> latency for client to view webfont styled content.” I’m hoping we, as a
>> group, can go further than this and describe:
>> >>
>> >> 1) Are we concerned with just first page load? Or are we concerned
>> with interactions users make with pages? Are we concerned with “infinite
>> scrolling” pages?
>> >>
>> >> 2) Which types of webpages have big problems? Is there any way to
>> characterize the types of sites that should see an improvement?
>> >>
>> >> 3) Which types of fonts most need improvement in their loading
>> experience? Fonts with many independent glyphs, like a Chinese font? Fonts
>> with complex shaping rules? Fonts with complicated outlines?
>> >>    => The Google Fonts corpus could provide some big insights here.
>> Which fonts are the ones that require big downloads but have much of the
>> file unused by the browser? Can such fonts be characterized? In general,
>> which fonts are the most popular?
>> >>
>> >> 4) Regarding comparison against the existing unicode-range solution,
>> should we try to make a cost function that includes both breaks in shaping
>> and latency? Or should we consider that a break in shaping should be
>> forbidden? Should we try to incorporate how many text flashes occur during
>> each user interaction?
>> >>
>> >> Figuring out the answers to questions like these will help us better
>> be able to weigh each possible solution. I’d love to hear everyone’s
>> thoughts about these sorts of things.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Myles
>> >
>>
>>
>>