[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?