"Lucida Sans Unicode" may match ugly "Lucida Bright" instead of "Lucida Sans"

Curious to see a screenshot (but not required).

Like to hear some more feedback on this, seems like a very easy fix. We have a lot of linux users and no real complaints from them over the past year, although offline I have heard gripes regarding Sevens font stack.

Basically just a re-roll.

I've got Lucida Sans installed, which is pretty common on a Linux system as part of the Java package. But DejaVu Sans is default and even more common, according to http://www.codestyle.org/css/font-family/sampler-UnixResults.shtml

But Lucida Sans is also fairly common on Windows/Mac, so to target Linux specifically and provide additional fallback for other systems, I would vote to add DejaVu Sans to the stack just ahead of Lucida Sans.

Cross-post. Adding a completely new font is up to Jeff.

Well I think stephthegeek knows a lot more about fonts that I ever will :)

I take it the proposal is to do this:

"Lucida Grande", "Lucida Sans Unicode", "DejaVu Sans", "Lucida Sans", sans-serif;

I've added some screen shots to show each font and the subtle differences. Obviously on my system Lucida Grande gets selected although even then in IE9 with the full stack the kerning gets ever so slightly adjusted, which is kind of weird.

Frankly I'm a big fan of Bitstream fonts and would not be opposed to adding DejaVu Sans to the stack.

FWIW I am just one lone voice in the cacophony - my job is more about managing this queue, reviewing patches etc, the real decisions are made by everyone.

Bah, ignore those screens, try these ones, those grabbed my other screen as well and are huge, sorry.

Read that as a feature request, I'm in that sort of mode.

I agree with this, it looks good.

Needs a reroll because of the new directory structure.

The problem that I'm seeing is that, because Lucida Sans Unicode is before Lucida Sans, Linux is still matching it to Lucida Bright for whatever reason. Is there a particular reason why Lucida Sans Unicode is preferred over Lucida Sans, or could Lucida Sans go in front of it?

The first patch is just the latest patch rerolled for the new directory structure. The second patch reorders the list of fonts to be "Lucida Grande", "Lucida Sans", "Lucida Sans Unicode" since ogi said the problem still existed with them ordered with Lucida Sans at the end.

I'm not sure which one would be more appropriate, but they were both easy enough to do that I figured it wouldn't hurt to leave them here for someone else to make the decision on.

#16: drupal-seven-662940-16.patch queued for re-testing.

#16: drupal-seven-reordered-662940-16.patch queued for re-testing.

Rerolled both patches from #16 against HEAD. As emclaughlin did, I'll leave it to Jeff or Tim to decide which is the better approach.

Novice issue cleanup.

Realized I should unassign myself from this since it needs review -- though I'm guessing these patches no longer apply.

This needs Lewis to look at it.

20: drupal-seven-662940-20.patch queued for re-testing.

I'm happy with the idea of adding the new font to the stack (second patch in #20).

This needs a reroll to account for the change in file structure but after that we are ready to go.

Rerolled.

I quickly checked to make sure the patch applies correctly. This stack has already been manually tested on a variety of machines so I think we're ready to go. Thanks.

27: drupal-seven-662940-27.patch queued for re-testing.

Looks like it's good again.

While a little bit sad over the time this took, the attention to detail of the Drupal community humbles me.

Re-rolling the patch.

Thanks! Setting to review to trigger the testbot.

Seems like testbot likes the patch? ;-)

Looks identical to me :)

Committed dd24d32 and pushed to 8.x. Thanks!