bug#28338: 25.2; Default fonts for Info

bug#28338: 25.2; Default fonts for Info

[Drew Adams]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1464 bytes --]

See screenshot, from MS Windows, emacs -Q

The default font for most Info text is apparently this:

-outline-Courier New-normal-normal-normal-mono-17-*-*-*-c-*-iso8859-1
 (#x48)

The face used for face `Info-quoted' is apparently this:

-outline-Consolas-normal-normal-normal-mono-17-*-*-*-c-*-iso8859-1
 (#x97)

This is backward from what most technical doc uses.  It is typical to
use a font such as Courier (or Courier New) for code.  It is typical to
use a proportional font for ordinary text.  The Consolas font used for
`Info-quoted' is not proportional, but it looks much more like a font
that one would see used for text than a font that is used for code.

Would Emacs Info be more readable out of the box if the fonts were
swapped?  Seems like using a font such as Courier for function and
variable names, keys, etc. might make more sense.

Personally, I'd prefer that the default font families be the same:
Courier (New) - as has always been the case before Emacs 25.2.  (Was
this change in default behavior even discussed on emacs-devel@gnu.org?)

(I'd also prefer that a color be used by default to distinguish face
`Info-quoted', but I don't expect that suggestion to fly.)


In GNU Emacs 25.2.1 (x86_64-w64-mingw32)
 of 2017-04-24 built on LAPHROAIG
Windowing system distributor 'Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601
Configured using:
 'configure --without-dbus --without-compress-install 'CFLAGS=-O2
 -static -g3''

[-- Attachment #2: throw-emacs-25-2-default-fonts.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 42834 bytes --]

bug#28338: 25.2; Default fonts for Info

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 08:23:26 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> 
> The default font for most Info text is apparently this:
> 
> -outline-Courier New-normal-normal-normal-mono-17-*-*-*-c-*-iso8859-1
>  (#x48)
> 
> The face used for face `Info-quoted' is apparently this:
> 
> -outline-Consolas-normal-normal-normal-mono-17-*-*-*-c-*-iso8859-1
>  (#x97)

Yes, that's true.

> This is backward from what most technical doc uses.  It is typical to
> use a font such as Courier (or Courier New) for code.  It is typical to
> use a proportional font for ordinary text.  The Consolas font used for
> `Info-quoted' is not proportional, but it looks much more like a font
> that one would see used for text than a font that is used for code.
> 
> Would Emacs Info be more readable out of the box if the fonts were
> swapped?  Seems like using a font such as Courier for function and
> variable names, keys, etc. might make more sense.

Courier New is the default font on Windows, selected both for its
wide-spread availability and its very good support for many scripts.
Consolas has significantly smaller coverage, so swapping is not an
option, at least not at this time.

Since Courier New is the default, the face used for code needs to find
another font, which is also wide-spread, monospaced, and looks
reasonably well in this context.  Consolas is about the only candidate
that satisfies these requirements.

So maybe this is sub-optimal wrt ideal typefaces, but the harsh
reality leaves us no choice.

> Personally, I'd prefer that the default font families be the same:
> Courier (New) - as has always been the case before Emacs 25.2.  (Was
> this change in default behavior even discussed on emacs-devel@gnu.org?)

There was no change, Courier New was and remains the default font.
The only change is that Info-quoted is a new face introduced
relatively recently.  (It took us a few iterations to find a good font
for that face.)

> (I'd also prefer that a color be used by default to distinguish face
> `Info-quoted', but I don't expect that suggestion to fly.)

You can always customize the face to fit your taste, of course.

bug#28338: 25.2; Default fonts for Info

[Drew Adams]

> > Personally, I'd prefer that the default font families be the same:
> > Courier (New) - as has always been the case before Emacs 25.2.  (Was
> > this change in default behavior even discussed on emacs-devel@gnu.org?)

Clearly I was speaking of the default font families for unquoted
and quoted Info text.

> There was no change, 

Clearly there _was_ a change in the default font family used
for quoted Info text.  That's what this bug report is about.

> Courier New was and remains the default font.

That's not the issue.  No one said otherwise.

> The only change is that Info-quoted is a new face introduced
> relatively recently.  (It took us a few iterations to find
> a good font for that face.)

I meant a change in the font used for quoted text.  Clearly
there was such a change.  That "only change" is what this
bug report is about - the default font for that face.

I suggest another iteration for the "we", whomever that
might have included (I saw no discussion of it.)

I suggest that Courier New should be the default font for
that face (as well as be the general default).  We have had
faces that are defined for customization purposes but whose
default appearance is the same as the default face.

> > (I'd also prefer that a color be used by default to distinguish
> > face `Info-quoted', but I don't expect that suggestion to fly.)
> 
> You can always customize the face to fit your taste, of course.

It's not about my personal use.  I filed the bug for
Emacs users in general.  Though, as I say, I don't
expect that suggestion to fly, it's still my suggestion.

FWIW, I have, in my library info+.el, had a face for
quoted text in Info since at least as long ago as 1996.
(And I suggested that Emacs do similarly several times
since, to no avail.)

In info+.el I have never used a different font for
the default value of that face.  I've (always) used a
different color.  No users have complained about that,
since 1996...

bug#28338: 25.2; Default fonts for Info

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 09:36:52 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> Cc: 28338@debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> I suggest another iteration for the "we", whomever that
> might have included

New ideas are always welcome, if they were not already considered in
the pst.

> (I saw no discussion of it.)

That doesn't mean there were none.  See, for example, bug#18077,
bug#19889, bug#22207, and bug#24597.

> I suggest that Courier New should be the default font for
> that face (as well as be the general default).

That would make it indistinguishable from the default face, so it's a
non-starter.

bug#28338: 25.2; Default fonts for Info

[Drew Adams]

> > (I saw no discussion of it.)
> 
> That doesn't mean there were none.  See, for example, bug#18077,
> bug#19889, bug#22207, and bug#24597.

emacs-devel is a better place for proposals to change default
behavior and discussions thereof.

> > I suggest that Courier New should be the default font for
> > that face (as well as be the general default).
> 
> That would make it indistinguishable from the default face, so it's a
> non-starter.

1. No, it would not, if you give it a different color instead
   of a different font.  You seem stubborn about hearing this.
   Changing the font is not the only way to make text stand out.

2. In the past Emacs has had cases where a face intentionally
   had exactly the same default appearance as the default face
   - nothing distinguishable at all.  Clearly that (misguided)
   choice was not a "non-starter" then.

   (In fact, I was among those who pointed out more than once
   that such a default face appearance was not a good idea.
   But for quite a while suggestions to make such faces look
   different by default were (ironically), themselves,
   "non-starters".)

My suggestion is _not_ to use exactly the same face as the
default face - I've made that quite clear.  My suggestion
is to not use a different font.  Using a different color
(whatever color) is a reasonable alternative.

In the past, Emacs (unwisely) used bold, but with the same
font, by default, here and there.  We pointed out that bold
does not render well for some platforms, in particular, for
MS Windows (with the default font).

Using bold was one approach (bad).  Using a different font
is another approach (bad - this bug).  Using a different
color is another approach (pretty good, IMHO).

You propose a color.  Almost any color would do, as long
as it is sufficiently different from the background color.

Users should (preferably) be able to notice it (i.e., not
the default foreground color, which you apparently agree
with), so that they can tell that it is something they can
customize it.

bug#28338: 25.2; Default fonts for Info

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 10:26:41 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> Cc: 28338@debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> My suggestion is _not_ to use exactly the same face as the
> default face - I've made that quite clear.  My suggestion
> is to not use a different font.  Using a different color
> (whatever color) is a reasonable alternative.

I don't like this suggestion, for at least two reasons: Info is
supposed to present a book-like appearance, thus no colors.  And some
people actively dislike colors.

In any case, the current situation is quite good, so I see no reason
to change it, especially not so close to the last change we made
there.

bug#28338: 25.2; Default fonts for Info

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> I don't like this suggestion, for at least two reasons: Info is
> supposed to present a book-like appearance, thus no colors.  And some
> people actively dislike colors.
>
> In any case, the current situation is quite good, so I see no reason
> to change it, especially not so close to the last change we made
> there.

There doesn't seem to be anything to fix here, so I'm closing this bug
report.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

bug#28338: 25.2; Default fonts for Info

[Drew Adams]

> > My suggestion is _not_ to use exactly the same face as the
> > default face - I've made that quite clear.  My suggestion
> > is to not use a different font.  Using a different color
> > (whatever color) is a reasonable alternative.
> 
> I don't like this suggestion, for at least two reasons: Info is
> supposed to present a book-like appearance, 

Who said that Info is supposed to do that?

> thus no colors.

What makes you think that books do not use color,
including for some text?

You seem to be grasping for some (non-existent)
hardline style rule to just dismiss this suggestion.

> And some people actively dislike colors.

Names? ;-)  More seriously, some people also dislike
the fact that by default Emacs does not use color.
And of course Emacs sometimes does use color by default
(e.g. font-locked modes).

That argument seems pretty vacuous.  Some people
actively dislike lots of things.

And that was the same argument given against the
long-ago suggestion to fontify quoted Info names.
You've finally gone with, not against, that idea,
but using the wrong way to make the text stand out.

> In any case, the current situation is quite good, 

It was "quite good" before this change also.  That
doesn't mean much.

What makes you think that the change made was for
the better?

> so I see no reason to change it, especially not
> so close to the last change we made there.

Right, and when it is _less_ close you will argue that
it has been the way it is for a while and that "that
ship has sailed."  Been there - seen this movie before.
Catch 22.

Now is a good time to fix this, not a bad time.

bug#28338: 25.2; Default fonts for Info

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 11:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> Cc: 28338@debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> What makes you think that the change made was for
> the better?

Because I happen to like the results.

> > so I see no reason to change it, especially not
> > so close to the last change we made there.
> 
> Right, and when it is _less_ close you will argue that
> it has been the way it is for a while and that "that
> ship has sailed."

So now you will invent what I will think and do in some hypothetical
future, and then derogate your invented thoughts and actions?

> Now is a good time to fix this, not a bad time.

Since there are no reasons to change, time is irrelevant.