Linux Libertine

[Nescio]

Some people like serifs. 0 A.D. uses the sans-serif font Linux Biolinum. I prefer Linux Libertine. Therefore I had a look at the source/tools/fontbuilder2/fontbuilder.py, generated new font images, and bundled them in a mod:

linux-libertine.zip

With the mod 0 A.D. uses Linux Libertine (Display and Bold) as the default font in game, and FreeSerif as the fallback font, which also happens to have a greater Unicode coverage (over 10,000 glyphs) than the default fallback font FreeSans (over 6000 glyphs).

It should work with both the development version (A24) and the stable (A23), as well as earlier versions (A22 etc.), but if experiencing trouble when switching, delete the 0ad cache (see https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/GameDataPaths ) and relaunch the game.

[EDIT]: @Itms, maybe something to upload to mod.io?

Edited February 10, 2020 by Nescio
mod.io

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Screenshots?

[Nescio]

9 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Screenshots?

A24:

Spoiler

A23:

Spoiler

 

[Stan`]

I can't remember where but I read multiple times that people usually avoid serif fonts on screens because they are (even though I consider them more beautiful too) harder to read.

Anyway good job!

[Lion.Kanzen]

19 minutes ago, Stan` said:

I can't remember where but I read multiple times that people usually avoid serif fonts on screens because they are (even though I consider them more beautiful too) harder to read.

Anyway good job!

because are hard to read on screen unlike printed.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Quote

In print design, we’re told that serif fonts are considered the most readable. The serifs purportedly serve as aids to the eye, moving you from one letter to the next in a smoother fashion. Given this age-old knowledge, it would make sense to assume that serif fonts would also make for a more readable experience on the screen, right? But as if to make life more difficult for designers everywhere, that’s not the case.

When low resolution screens were common, it became apparent that fonts designed for print didn’t look right on screen. Print fonts were vectors, geometric instructions detailing the outline of each character, which worked well for printers that commonly started at resolutions ten times higher than computer screens and higher. But when you took these fonts and viewed them on a screen capable of showing a tenth of the resolution, there simply weren’t enough pixels to display the details of the typeface naturally.

To counter this issue, font designers created bitmapped fonts. Instead of using vectors, lines that could scale smoothly to any size, bitmapped fonts described each character on a grid of pixels. The problem with this approach was that the font designer had to create bitmaps for each font size, and when you tried to use an unsupported size, the characters would appear jagged and pixelated. It’s exactly the same principle at work when you take a digital photograph, which are also bitmapped, and enlarge it beyond the resolution it was taken at.

Today, our devices boast screens that have higher PPI (pixel per inch) counts than ever before. On devices such as the iPhone 4, the display is so dense that research shows the individual pixels are no longer visible to the human eye.

The bottom line is that the fewer details a font needs to convey a character clearly, the more readable it will appear on a broader range of screens. To the frustration of designers, there are still people using displays that are more than ten years old, and a good screen font doesn’t neglect technology that is still in widespread use. Our displays are becoming more and more capable, but the adoption rates need to catch up before typographers can breathe a sigh of relief.

Designers love to argue on this topic, but the current consensus–at least as close as anyone can get to one–is that sans-serif fonts are still superior for screen body text, and serif fonts are best used for headings. For many users with newer displays, though, the difference is negligible.

 

[Nescio]

1 hour ago, Stan` said:

I can't remember where but I read multiple times that people usually avoid serif fonts on screens because they are (even though I consider them more beautiful too) harder to read.

1 hour ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

because are hard to read on screen unlike printed.

That's actually a popular myth that is repeated so often that people have started believing it. If anything, it's the other way around: serifs improve readability, which is why books and other print media use them.

The reasons why sans-serif fonts are recommended for displays are two-fold and mainly historical. Displays used to have only a handful of pixels and there was simply no space for serifs (try putting text in an image with only 6 pixels vertically). Nowadays computer (and phone) screens tend to have such high resolutions this is no longer relevant.

Secondly, sans-serif fonts first appeared only in the late 19th C, around the same time Modernism emerged (not a coincidence), and have always carried “modern” connotations. In the early 20th C Bauhaus was very influential on many fields and let to the Futura typeface; decades later Helvetica and Univers became successful on the same principles. Using a sans-serif font to push back at what is considered old is still prevalent in the 21st C.

Google used a serif font (Catull) in its logo until 2015, when as part of a larger corporate reorganization (which created the parent company Alphabet) it was deemed necessary to reinvent itself and create a new identity.

The “serif vs sans-serif” is rather a false dichotomy; what matters is that a good font is chosen, not whether or not it has serifs. And there are many bad fonts, both serif and sans-serif. As for sans-serifs, Arial is a rather poor typeface; Comic Sans quite decent; Frutiger is simply great, it was designed for airports, and has since been adopted for railway stations and road signs, due to its readability at long distances.

Linux Biolinum is not a bad font, but I like Linux Libertine better. If I believed it would be less readable I wouldn't have taken the trouble to make a mod for it.

[Lion.Kanzen]

14 minutes ago, Nescio said:

That's actually a popular myth that is repeated so often that people have started believing it. If anything, it's the other way around: serifs improve readability, which is why books and other print media use them.

Isn't a myth.

[Lion.Kanzen]

15 minutes ago, Nescio said:

That's actually a popular myth that is repeated so often that people have started believing it. If anything, it's the other way around: serifs improve readability, which is why books and other print media use them.

The reasons why sans-serif fonts are recommended for displays are two-fold and mainly historical. Displays used to have only a handful of pixels and there was simply no space for serifs (try putting text in an image with only 6 pixels vertically). Nowadays computer (and phone) screens tend to have such high resolutions this is no longer relevant.

Secondly, sans-serif fonts first appeared only in the late 19th C, around the same time Modernism emerged (not a coincidence), and have always carried “modern” connotations. In the early 20th C Bauhaus was very influential on many fields and let to the Futura typeface; decades later Helvetica and Univers became successful on the same principles. Using a sans-serif font to push back at what is considered old is still prevalent in the 21st C.

Yes Indroduction to graphic desing class. I know the origin.

[Stan`]

18 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Comic Sans quite decent;

Is pretty awful as it's only goal is too mimic childish writing.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Arial is a bad copy of Helvectica.

 

 

Quote

 

Birth of Helvetica

Helvetica typeface was designed in 1957 by Max Miedinger.  Miedinger based his design on that of Akzidenz Grotesk 1896 which was classified as Grotesque san serif face.

 

 Birth of Arial

In 1982 Robin Nicholas and Patricia Saunders created the Arial typeface for Monotype and labeled it Neo Grotesque. Essentially it’s an “original” design that just happens to share exactly the same proportions and weight as another typeface, as stated by Mark Simonson.  In other words, it’s a copy with very few differences to be able to call it a unique typeface.

 

Quote

Arial is everywhere!

Some say that Arial was created by Microsoft for their Windows 3.1 so that they could avoid paying licensing fees and save money.  Whatever you choose to believe, you most likely use Arial everyday without thinking about it much.

The popularity of Windows 3.1 has made Arial a household name.  Microsoft understood that the average person could not tell the difference between Helvitica and Arial and -more importantly-  they would not care.  It seems they were right in their thinking.  Today Arial font can be seen everywhere, from academic papers to advertising design, and has knocked Helvetica out of the top spot for the last 30 years.

The Arial vs Helvetica debate is still strong amongst those in the typography industry and font historians. (Also among designers and Type lovers!)  The best way to get a sense of the similarities and differences is to place the typefaces side by side.  Only individual tastes can say which font reigns supreme.

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

Quote

Comic Sans quite decent

Blasphemy 

[Lion.Kanzen]

Helvetica is quit perfect but in a heavy block of text the serifs are better.

https://www.nickkolenda.com/font-psychology/

[Nescio]

20 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Isn't a myth.

It is. Find me a reliable study in support.

19 minutes ago, Stan` said:

Is pretty awful as it's only goal is too mimic childish writing.

12 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Blasphemy 

Comic Sans has a poor reputation and is taken less seriously. I dislike it myself too; when I wrote “quite decent” I wasn't commenting on its beauty, I was talking about its readability; at least all its letters are distinct, contrary to geometric fonts (where b, d, p, q are all the same).

[Lion.Kanzen]

22 minutes ago, Nescio said:

It is. Find me a reliable study in support.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4612630/

Always it depends what are you using the fonts. 

[Nescio]

23 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4612630/

Always it depends what are you using the fonts. 

Thanks for the link. I read the article from beginning to end, yet could find nothing in support of your claim. In fact, it states:

However, our data exhibited no difference in legibility between typefaces that differ only in the presence or absence of serifs.

and:

In Experiments 2 and 3, the presence or absence of serifs made no difference in reading speed, for all participants, both normally sighted and those with low vision. Only in Experiment 1, which used an acuity criterion of legibility, was a statistical effect of serif size observed. The size of the observed effect was extremely small, however.

which is in agreement with what I wrote earlier:

1 hour ago, Nescio said:

The “serif vs sans-serif” is rather a false dichotomy

[Lion.Kanzen]

3 hours ago, Nescio said:

Thanks for the link. I read the article from beginning to end, yet could find nothing in support of your claim. In fact, it states:

However, our data exhibited no difference in legibility between typefaces that differ only in the presence or absence of serifs.

and:

In Experiments 2 and 3, the presence or absence of serifs made no difference in reading speed, for all participants, both normally sighted and those with low vision. Only in Experiment 1, which used an acuity criterion of legibility, was a statistical effect of serif size observed. The size of the observed effect was extremely small, however.

which is in agreement with what I wrote earlier:

Yes but it depends we are talking about books. I need time to argue about this. Are many variables to take in consideration .

[sarcoma]

Please replace the default font, either serif or sans, that applies to the lobby chat to allow arabic script among others.

It is so biased not to support those languages when there are many fonts readily available

$ fc-list -f '%{file}\n' :lang=ar
/usr/share/fonts/TTF/DejaVuSansMono-Bold.ttf
/usr/share/fonts/TTF/DejaVuSansMono.ttf
/usr/share/fonts/TTF/DejaVuSans.ttf
/usr/share/fonts/TTF/DejaVuSansCondensed.ttf
/usr/share/fonts/TTF/DejaVuSansCondensed-Bold.ttf
/usr/share/fonts/gnu-free/FreeSerifBold.otf
/usr/share/fonts/TTF/DejaVuSans-Bold.ttf
/usr/share/fonts/gnu-free/FreeMono.otf
/usr/share/fonts/gnu-free/FreeSerif.otf

It would be better if the game used the system fonts, idk how difficult is that.
idk why the CJK mods are so big when my CJK fonts are beautiful and a lot lighter: arphic-ukai, sazanami and baekmuk.

[Stan`]

The problem with Arabic is not the font. Choosing a font is easy. The issue is supporting RTL languages which apparently for some reason we do not.

As to why CJK fonts have to be split, the reason is the way fonts are rendered in game. For performance fonts are cached as image textures for all the sizes we support (Which is why it looks blurry in 4K with zoom) and those images are pretty big.

One solution would be to render fonts in real time using a lib called Cairo ( which is now deprecated) and would be slow. 

We can't use system fonts because the font rendering is done by a python script that is only run once. Also because it's a bit complicated to to do it on all platforms.

[Nescio]

5 hours ago, sarcoma said:

Please replace the default font, either serif or sans, that applies to the lobby chat to allow arabic script among others.

1 hour ago, Stan` said:

The problem with Arabic is not the font. Choosing a font is easy. The issue is supporting RTL languages which apparently for some reason we do not.

Exactly:

1 hour ago, Stan` said:

One solution would be to render fonts in real time using a lib called Cairo ( which is now deprecated) and would be slow. 

What you need is pango, which would also allow different writing directions and properly scaling text sizes.

[Stan`]

1 hour ago, Nescio said:

What you need is pango, which would also allow different writing directions and properly scaling text sizes.

Which need to be tweaked to generate the texture atlas on the fly (when loading the game) removing the need for the python scrip. That's a bit complicated.

[Nescio]

23 minutes ago, Stan` said:

Which need to be tweaked to generate the texture atlas on the fly (when loading the game) removing the need for the python scrip. That's a bit complicated.

Of course, I never said it would be easy to implement; it's something for the long-term wish list, like multi-core support or splitting the public mod.

[Itms]

Hello, regardless of the debate about serif fonts, it would be nice to have that as a mod for people who agree with Nescio. Can you please follow these instructions? Thank you

[Nescio]

2 hours ago, Itms said:

Hello, regardless of the debate about serif fonts, it would be nice to have that as a mod for people who agree with Nescio. Can you please follow these instructions? Thank you

Here you go: https://0ad.mod.io/linux-libertine

[sphyrth]

The Wildfiregames Forums is mostly Sans font, and I find this thread readable. The issue is HOW you use the fonts. And Lion has been clear about General design rules... which obviously has exceptions.

As for the choice of Font. Yes, Libertine seems to have better Serif attributes than Biolinum. I prefer that type of font for 0 A.D.... especially on the small chat boxes.

Edited February 15, 2020 by sphyrth