6

This site, AskUbuntu.com, uses the "UbuntuRegular" font. Sometimes the font size is 14px, which displays fine, but in the "comments" (& perhaps other places), the font size is 13px, which cuts off the bottom of low-hanging chars.

Here is a screenshot of the string "testing 123 abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz" as a comment, in various sizes...

The string "testing 123 abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz" as a comment, in various sizes.

Notice the "g", "j" & "y" have the bottom cut off in sizes 12 & 13px.

Here is a screenshot of the letter "g" (from the word "testing" in the screenshot above) in 13px & 14px, pasted in Paint, zoomed to 800%, grid turned on & then another screenshot taken of that...

The letter "g" in 13px & 14px, pasted in Paint, zoomed to 800%, grid turned on & then another screenshot taken of that.

The "13px" g is really in an 8px by 11px "box" (with 1px whitespace around it — not based on actual "character box" size, since I don't know where it is from a screenshot).

At 1st I thought it was a line-height issue, but then, after ruling that out, I noticed it's a font problem. The "UbuntuRegular" font simply don't render well at 12px & 13px.

This bug really needs to be fixed by someone editing the "UbuntuRegular" font...however, AskUbuntu.com could workaround the issue by making comments either 14px or 11px...or using a different font.

Note: please see the revision history for what I went thru to report this!

migrated from askubuntu.com Mar 18 '14 at 7:06

This question came from our site for Ubuntu users and developers.

  • 1
    Looks like there's already a bug report for this : g's look like q's font oddity. – user249743 Mar 18 '14 at 15:39
  • when this site first launched the Ubuntu font was still in beta. I'm also using it as a embedded web font. A question for the community is: should I ditch web font method and simply call font-family: ubuntu, arial, san-serif instead? This is what ubuntu.com does. – Jin Mar 18 '14 at 21:51
  • Considering that this bug report is more detailed and up to date, should we close that one (which @André found) as a duplicate of this? Or are they to be considered different bugs? (Or something else...) – Eliah Kagan Mar 18 '14 at 23:55
  • @Jin do the newer versions of the font has the same problem? – Braiam Mar 19 '14 at 0:35
  • @EliahKagan I agree we should close the old one and leave this report as it's more detailed. – user249743 Mar 19 '14 at 1:27
  • About the dupe: I'm sorry about that, but that dupe doesn't mention "UbuntuRegular" in any way...so it did not come up in my searches. Also, if this is a known issue (from almost a year ago)...why hasn't it been dealt with? I agree with duping the old one to this one (sorry @soandos but your old report has nothing "searchable" in it {hence, I didn't find it!}...so the dupe has to be in this direction {yours to mine, instead of mine to yours})...but I just wanted to mention: I did search before I posted this & did not find that old report. – user259419 Mar 19 '14 at 7:19
  • @Jin No, don't do that. Actually, it appears that Ubuntu.com is using the font "Ubuntu" (not "UbuntuRegular"), via the Google Fonts API. You are specifying font-family: 'UbuntuRegular',Ubuntu,'Bitstream Vera Sans','DejaVu Sans',Tahoma,sans-serif;...you are forcing the "UbuntuRegular" font (with no space, if that matters) to override the preference of "Ubuntu". Your version is hosted on sstatic.net, can you provide a link to where you originally got your version?...is there an official download for it? Remember, the simplest fix is changing all 13px fonts on the site to 14px – user259419 Mar 20 '14 at 4:19
  • @Jin It's all very confusing...I don't know if the font "UbuntuRegular" (no space) is actually different from the "Ubuntu" font, in the "Regular" form/weight or not. In my testing, they did seem different. I'd say: just find the newest version of "Ubuntu" or "UbuntuRegular" & if that don't have this issue, use it! – user259419 Mar 20 '14 at 4:19
  • 1
    As of right now this is still not fixed and it's pretty annoying. – user249743 Sep 22 '14 at 11:58

You must log in to answer this question.