[tln]

I don't think web pages should stay away from font stacks just to handle people with changed esoteric browser prefs. If you as a user want to see different fonts everywhere, you'll need invasive tools that block font face etc. Or Firefox (where this message comes from) has a setting to "Allow pages to choose their own fonts, instead of your selections above"

[krono]

These font stacks don't handle anything at all, they just throw a bunch of common typeface names at the wall and they can't even tell what sticks because it's so random. All the while, the user might have a prefered fallback font set that they prefer over any of the ones in the font stack - and even if that isn't the case, simply using 'monospace' as the only fallback will render the default monospace font anyway.

I disagree with the notion that common browser configuration options available for users to change through the main/general browser settings UI would in any way be esoteric. It is wholly irrelevant anyway.

The setting you mention has no effect in the case I outlined above - Even with "Allow pages to choose their own fonts, instead of your selections above." enabled, the same results are observed.

[reaperducer]

they just throw a bunch of common typeface names at the wall and they can't even tell what sticks because it's so random.

Anytime someone on HN doesn't understand CSS, they throw up their hands and call it random. Just because you don't understand what's happening doesn't mean it's random.

I don't understand the SAM76 programming language, but I don't pretend that

  !%ii,*,1,1,!%mu,*,%F,%su,*,1//////////=

is "random."

the user might have a prefered fallback font set that they prefer over any of the ones in the font stack

Great! Then the user gets his preferred font, as requested, instead of the one the page specified. Sounds like a win, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about. I expect you'd also complain if the web page overrode the user's choice.

I disagree with the notion that common browser configuration options available for users to change through the main/general browser settings UI would in any way be esoteric.

Of the six billion or so people on the web, the number of people manually overriding fonts isn't even a rounding error. It's not even a rounding error's rounding error. Get out of the tech bubble.

[aaronblohowiak]

Accusing the person you are replying to of not understanding css after the knowledge built in to their argument doesn’t paint you in a good light. I don’t have horse in this race, but I’d encourage you to take a beat.

[krono]

Oh you flatterer!

My top level comment was not a complaint at all, but rather a heads-up regarding the potentially unexpected or often misunderstood effects of applying these font stacks, accompanied by a practical example, and a personal recommendation with my reasoning.

Now, please, don't be so hostile. It's nasty and makes you come across as a lot more stupid than I believe you really are.

[xp84]

> the number of people manually overriding fonts isn't even a rounding error. It's not even a rounding error's rounding error

This is very obviously true. And given the fact that 100% of mainstream websites and 99.99% of non-mainstream ones use font declarations other than “serif”, “sans-serif”, or “monospace,” it is absolutely unsurprising that no one (but us super nerds) bothers to set this setting that every website will override.

And indeed, the near-universal usage of web fonts today has taken us even farther into the territory where a web property specifies the precise appearance, leaving no decisions to the user agent. If it weren’t for responsive layouts being standard, the Web would have more in common with a PDF than the early HTML web where users might have a reason to use user stylesheets and specify their preferred fonts.

[myfonj]

> Great! Then the user gets his preferred font, as requested, instead of the one the page specified.

No. You've misread the main point. The user would have gotten his preferred font if the font stack was either just plain

    font-family: monospace;

or

    font-family: <list of fonts their system does *not* support or does *not* allow to be used>, monospace;

. But the case is that the suggested font stack contains some "unwanted" font that their system both supports and allows to be used, that precedes the generic `monospace` font family the user actually prefers, or, more precisely, have assigned their typeface to. Is it more clear now?

I agree it is not a huge "bug" on the first sight, and as it seems even this is somewhat solvable without disabling font support completely. But since it takes some effort and expertise on the user's side, it adds the "bug" some weight nonetheless.

[wpollock]

Slightly off-topic question: is it still necessary to list monospace twice, the way it was years ago, to have monospace render at the correct size?

[myfonj]

> esoteric browser prefs

That hurts. I see where you are standing, and can confirm you expressed opinion of the contemporary majority of browser users, but man, how sad it that. The attitude diverged by a light years, when "Setting preferred fonts for generic font families" is now "esoteric". (Web) browsers ("user agents") came to existence with these capabilities in mind, and even now are build around the principle of "preferences reconciliation" between defaults, author and user (as opposed to simple "display what author dictates"). And default font choice is probably the very first aspect it ever had to handle.

(Or were you referring to some other "pref"?)

[ryandrake]

Browsers have ceded way too much control to web designers. The user should be in control. When it comes to what fonts the computer uses, the text size, the color scheme, the user preference should be able to easily override the web site's code. Who's computer is it, anyway?

[tracker1]

I'd be pretty over the moon if the browser supported the following preferences... especially given the number of electron or otherwise browser embedded UI options..

    system.font.primary
    system.font.header
    system.font.monospace
    system.colors.foreground
    system.colors.background
    system.colors.header
    system.colors.highlight
    system.colors.accent

It might be reasonable to have more than this, and the accent and highlight color may or may not be the same color... but it would go a long way towards matching the system defaults, with appropriate css variables injected as well.

[xp84]

The branding people have definitely won this war here. I agree with you, but the answer to your final question is, sadly these days, never the user or the supposed owner of the hardware. I think it’s pretty easy to argue today that when you boot a computer or phone, it belongs to Apple or Microsoft or Google. When you open a website or “app,“ the computer temporarily belongs to its developer. The fact that even browsers don’t have a built-in, simple-to-configure option to toggle persistent cookies on or off per website, opt-in, of course, is all the evidence you need of that for the web. None of this is OK with me, but it’s the world we have now.

[xigoi]

The problem is that most fonts don’t support basic OpenType features. I make heavy use of small caps on my websites (they are IMO criminally underrated). If I were not using a custom font, most users would get hideous “synthetic” small caps.

[tln]

The esoteric part is the combination of "Setting preferred fonts for generic font families" AND the security adjustments necessary to trigger "Request for font XYZ blocked at visibility level 2"

Sure if you want to set browser prefs for fonts, go for it. It'll make the OG sites with almost no stylesheet a little more readable (looking at you, wiki.c2.com). But you should not expect or ask web page authors to not use their preferred fonts. If you want to override web page fonts, use a more invasive or pervasive tool.

Font/page size preferences, on the other hand, web page authors should respect and do a better job with.

[tracker1]

It's mixed bag... the designer of a given website has an intended look/feel and style... if you override that you can do as you like, but it's not like the author's intent should always simply be dismissed.

Beyond this, not every web developer expressly wants to burden a browser to a specific web font payload when they have a close/suitable match where this modern font stack is good enough in terms of design intent.

Third, if all else fails, the user sees their own selected default... I'm not sure that I understand the objection here... As long as appropriate semantic markup and the font is one that actually scales to appropriate px/pt then it should be fine. If the selected font/typeface doesn't, then it's on the user to select a better default/fallback.

[bigstrat2003]

> it's not like the author's intent should always simply be dismissed.

Yes it is. The designer should always understand that the user is ultimately in control of a web page, and that their (the designer's) vision is not what matters at the end of the day.

[tracker1]

If you choose to use w3m or lynx you get what you get. Same for disabling fonts or JS... most people don't have time to cater to 0.05% of users who go way off the norm.

[toast0]

> If you as a user want to see different fonts everywhere, you'll need invasive tools that block font face etc.

You have it backwards. These tools allow you to see the same fonts everywhere.

Just because the page author thinks lowercase f should look out of place doesn't mean I should have to see them like that. :p