Closely related to bug 59815, the "typography refresh" beta feature now includes a layout change, making the label "typography refresh" misleading and inaccurate.
Several users have recommended putting the layout change(s) into a separate experiment that's appropriately labeled. I've yet to hear any argument for why this would be a bad idea.
Version: unspecified
Severity: normal
Typography (from the Greek words τύπος (typos) = form and γραφή (graphe) = writing) is the art and technique of arranging type in order to make language visible.
Please stop. Typography is both the letters and how they are arranged on a page. I'm not sure why you are trying to be difficult, but its not helpful to anyone to keep opening these useless bugs.
Thank you for you contributions to the project but this is not helpful and I'm pretty sure you know that.
skizzerz wrote:
I don't see exactly how the two are exactly the same. You gave a dictionary definition that doesn't prove or disprove your case and (what appears to me as) an inflammatory response to a perfectly valid question. Just because you have (WMF) in your name and MZMcBride doesn't mean that you hold some sort of authority over what bugs are valid and what aren't, open up your viewpoint a bit.
For me, and I think many web designers, typography refers to the font and font-related styles (font size, line height, etc.). It does *not* refer to how things are visually laid out on the page (which includes padding, margins, link styles, etc.).
I tried out the typography refresh myself earlier, but disabled it because it messed with things like link styles in the sidebar, sidebar width, and various other things that proved to be rather annoying. If these changes are intentional along with your "typography refresh", then MZMcBride is correct in that the name of the feature is misleading, as it includes other changes beyond the font.
Reopening this bug as it is perfectly valid -- either split off the layout changes to a separate feature, or stop calling the feature "typography refresh". And Jared, please get off your high horse. Before simply closing this again because you don't like it and it's your-way-or-the-highway, try providing valid reasoning for what you say (and no, dictionary definitions don't count. A "valid reason" would be something like "The layout changes are included with the font changes because [insert reason on why they two sets of changes should be bundled] and if they were not included, then [insert downside that would happen if only one change were enabled without the other]").
(In reply to comment #2)
For me, and I think many web designers, typography refers to the font and
font-related styles (font size, line height, etc.).
I agree. I think most casual users (or rather, most non-Web designers), who are the target audience of beta features such as this, would agree with this common usage of the word "typography." I think it's jarring to enable purported typography changes and be presented with an intentionally shrunken layout. Many other users seem to hold the same view that this is unexpected.
I think this bug is trivial to resolve, either by renaming the experiment or creating a separate "Layout refresh" experiment. I'm not sure what the resistance to the mere suggestion of doing so is.
MZ. This bug can only lead me to the conclusion that you are being a troll.
This is a fricking /beta feature/. If it was a core feature that was live in production I could understand a bug but it's a fricking /beta feature/ - freedom of expression reigns. We are trying out ideas, innovating which is sometimes uncomfortable. Are you really suggested we waste man hours on a rename and discussing silly bugs like this? This kind of thing stifles innovation and was the exact reason BetaFeatures was created. I hope if some community member launches a BetaFeature (which they can and I encourage them to do so in the VectorBeta extension) has a crazy idea you won't open bugs against it repelling their ideas.
Marking a bug as easy is basically saying to a new developer - you can work on this and it will get merged! This is a huge lie and totally misleading. I will never merge any fix to this bug for the reasons stated by Jared and me previously.
You usually are much more helpfu when it comes to bug reports, managing to wade through the bullshit and get to the real core of problems but I'm disappointed with your attitude recently and can only conclude you have some vendetta against me. If this is true I'd rather you were more professional and discussed this with me/others over e-mail than via Bugzilla at the expense of pulling volunteers into this.
Please respect my decision to resolve this as invalid as the /ONLY/ existing developer on this product. I really don't want to waste a volunteers time when there are so many more bugs on Bugzilla that are marked as easy that need fixes than this. Surely as a volunteer you have some knowledge of how disheartening it can be to work on a bug that gets -2ed. I dealt with this situation last week, and luckily I managed to persuade a new volunteer despite being completely demotivated to stick with us. Let's not foster such an environment please. You are much more intelligent than that... Please channel your useful energy into other more constructive causes?
swalling wrote:
(In reply to comment #0)
Closely related to bug 59815, the "typography refresh" beta feature now
includes a layout change, making the label "typography refresh" misleading
and
inaccurate.Several users have recommended putting the layout change(s) into a separate
experiment that's appropriately labeled. I've yet to hear any argument for
why
this would be a bad idea.
As Jared tried to explain, column width, measure or line length is not a "layout" issue. It's a part of the usual definition of what typography is.[1][2] If you're claiming that setting a max-width in CSS is outside the scope of a typography beta, that's 100% factually inaccurate.
(In reply to comment #4)
MZ. This bug can only lead me to the conclusion that you are being a troll.
I thought we just discussed this on wikitech-l? http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2013-December/073570.html and http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2013-December/073581.html
(In reply to comment #4)
This is a fricking /beta feature/. If it was a core feature that was live in
production I could understand a bug but it's a fricking /beta feature/ -
freedom of expression reigns. We are trying out ideas, innovating which is
sometimes uncomfortable. Are you really suggested we waste man hours on a
rename and discussing silly bugs like this? This kind of thing stifles
innovation and was the exact reason BetaFeatures was created. I hope if some
community member launches a BetaFeature (which they can and I encourage them
to do so in the VectorBeta extension) has a crazy idea you won't open bugs
against it repelling their ideas.
In your mind, the idea is to create beta features, but never improve them? I don't think that's a very sensible approach.
Please respect my decision to resolve this as invalid as the /ONLY/ existing
developer on this product.
Perhaps you're the _only_ developer due to your poor "this is MINE!" attitude. You asked to not be involved with this issue, which I can respect. But you then came along and _inserted yourself_ into this bug report by copying yourself on it and changing the bug's status, without addressing comment 2 or comment 0. This isn't appropriate behavior.
(In reply to comment #4)
You usually are much more helpfu when it comes to bug reports, managing to
wade through the bullshit and get to the real core of problems but I'm
disappointed with your attitude recently and can only conclude you have some
vendetta against me. If this is true I'd rather you were more professional and
discussed this with me/others over e-mail than via Bugzilla at the expense of
pulling volunteers into this.
Yep, Jon, you've nailed it. It's a conspiracy. Good work, Clouseau.
It would help if all involved parties (had) kept "Criticize ideas, not people" in mind here.
(In reply to comment #5)
As Jared tried to explain, column width, measure or line length is not a
"layout" issue. It's a part of the usual definition of what typography
is.[1][2] If you're claiming that setting a max-width in CSS is outside the
scope of a typography beta, that's 100% factually inaccurate.https://www.fonts.com/content/learning/fontology/level-2/text-typography/
length-column-width
Which would be fair if MediaWiki pages were composed of nothing but text. They aren't. Setting a max-width on #bodyContent affects the entire page, images and all, which has been mentioned in many of the complaints. It's even affecting Commons gallery pages, which are mostly images. As currently implemented, this IS a layout change.
I don't care about the name all that much, change it or not, but I am getting tired of genuine concerns being shouted down or called "trolling".