Hi. There is a clear visual improvement, and also the fonts allow a better, more attractive reading.
2 Likes
Not really 
I made the screenshot on purpose showing how the pixls site looks like and how rawpedia looks like. Most of the other sites have the look the pixls site has, the fonts look well rendered (even if I enlarge them until they match the size of rawpedia).
The fonts on rawpedia are just not rendered nice enough by Chrome on Windows. It might be that the my computer does not have the fonts used and some other are used instead them? I only have the standard Windows fonts and some Roboto fonts installed to test the elegant theme of darktable.
Hereâs what inspector shows me on Firefox on Linux:
Have a look at your Chrome equivalent of Web Developer > Inspector and see whether you have Open Sans.
2 Likes
Hmm ⊠looks like this:
But your hint was good, the chrome inspector also shows what the problem might be:
The link is https://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/skins/pivot/assets/fonts/fontawesome-webfont.woff2?v=4.7.0
Fonts are fun, eh? 
2 Likes
Not all browsers support all kinds of fonts⊠For the web there are at least three major formats. Also font awesome is just the icon font, it isnât used for the body or headline text.
1 Like
Oh, so I was just to happy to find an error 
I was expecting the combination of Windows and Chrome to support most of the things, it should be on top in the âinternet usageâ 
Just for comparison I made a screenshot with how rawpedia is rendered by Firefox and by Chrome on Windows 10:
I guess Firefox wins this one, especially for the âcode snippetsâ section.
A lot of sites use Open Sans as a main font, thatâs true (not every site) because itâs nice, and readable⊠and wide
Above is Open Sans, as shown in Google fonts. Below is Fira Sans as shown same place. As I said, Open Sans is nice and slightly wider, but I canât see Fira Sans bad, or rough, or not readable too.
The font was chosen precisely because even being nice and readable, is narrower. If you take into account pages as the Spanish wavelet documentation, the Color Management addon, or the current French documentation of the Local Lab tool, and try to read them on a smartphone, you will suddenly know what Iâm talking about. Documentation needs to be more compact, but readable.
Well, at least that was the idea.
Not likely, as all the fonts are loaded as you load a Rawpedia page. You wonât have them installed locally, but your browser will have them and will make use of them (until you close the browser).
True. And among that, the browser tries to load those icons from 4 different formats, and choose the one that likes the most. It happens that thereâs one of the font awesome versions which is not liked by Chrome.
Not strange I guess, as Fira Sans was developed specifically for Firefox OS, from a font used by Mozilla. That doesnât mean that is a font only well rendered by Firefox. May it mean itâs not well rendered by Chrome on purpose? 
Could you make a test on your computer, please? You will have to use Chromium (the alma mater of Chrome), but without all the «advantages» added by Google.
Download the appropriate version in PORTABLE version (click the Archive link, and after download finishes, extract the contents to a folder you choose)
Itâs not the latest version, but you may test if it renders the fonts correctly. If it does, then youâre advised to change your default browser (Chromium is THE SAME browser as Chrome).
Any opinions on the suggested changes I showed in my previous post?
I see no difference between them:
ClearType is enabled. Iâll check if disabling 2D acceleration in Chrome fixes something, but again, the rest of the sites I usually read look just fine. Only rawpedia looks ânot as goodâ
Ok. Thanks for trying it out.
Iâm looking at the problem from another point of view (although in my systems I see no problem, so I rely in your testing).
According to this post in Stack Overflow, it seems that thereâs a problem with the Fira Sans font downloaded from Google fonts, and I have downloaded it from the suggested original source. There are obvious differences between them, but I donât know if that will solve the problem.
The new Fira Sans version is already online, so can you check how does it look now?
If that doesnât work either, I will check if Open Sans doesnât break the skin, and if it doesnât I will make a definitive change.
And as it seems that it doesnât break anything and it still looks good, Iâm going to:
- update the code snippets styling
- decrease the font size 1px and increase the line height for larger resolutions (there will be no change for small screens)
Stay tuned, and keep sending feedback! 
1 Like
It looks fine now. The font rendering is more or less the same as for the other sites (i.e. pixls).
1 Like
Sorry for the sharper than intended poke. Hard month and a no-sleep week can do that. The tone was supposed to be positive:
It was constructive but lacked in specifics. Ran out of time to do that but the others have done so splendidly and I concur with most of it. Keep up the good work!
1 Like
Well, thatâs a relief! Thanks for your help! 
1 Like
I think most of the suggestions should be working now in the live website.
The code typeface has been switched by a (hopefully) better one.
We havenât yet an Eek link, and Iâm afraid we wonât have a table of contents on-screen all the time. But as @afre said, I keep working on polishing the skin. 
@sguyader: as I thought, the Tools group on the sidebar canât be moved to the footer area, nor can be positioned on the bottom part of the sidebar without editing php files. What can be done is placing it below the other groups, if that helps:
If there are any other suggestions, or even if those changes recently made are not good enough, youâre welcome to point them out here.
Hi, positioning the Tools group below the others is actually what I meant. Thatâs good now.
I like the new look but the change has ruined the formatting of the PDF you get when you click âDownload a Book.â The PDF version is handy when youâre offline.
Great!
I will upload the changes ASAP