Bug 82320

Summary: Phoebe2 Mozilla default font "Bitstream Charter"
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Public Beta Reporter: Warren Togami <wtogami>
Component: mozillaAssignee: Christopher Blizzard <blizzard>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact: Ben Levenson <benl>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: phoebe   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2003-01-31 17:20:00 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Warren Togami 2003-01-21 08:19:37 UTC 
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20030115

Description of problem:
In Phoebe2 Mozilla began to default to the following fonts:
Proportional: Serif
Serif: Bitstream Charter
Sans-serif: Bitstream Charter
Cursive: Bitstream Charter
Fantasy: Bitstream Charter
Monospace: Bitstream Charter

Problems
=========
1) Bitstream Charter seems to be ugly compared to the default fonts in previous
releases.
2) Bitstream Charter is not a Monospace font.


How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Install Phoebe2
2. Use Mozilla as a new user.

Actual Results:  
Poor font defaults, and Monospace is not monospace.

Expected Results:  
Better font defaults, (based upon usability tests?)
Comment 1 Christopher Blizzard 2003-01-21 18:35:47 UTC 
Are you seeing those as the defaults in the fonts pref panel or actually being
used in the browser?
Comment 2 Warren Togami 2003-01-21 23:04:14 UTC 
Both.
Comment 3 Christopher Blizzard 2003-01-22 14:42:49 UTC 
See also:

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=172779

These are probably the patches that I'm going to be using in our Mozilla release.
Comment 4 Warren Togami 2003-01-31 09:49:02 UTC 
Rawhide mozilla uses System fonts by default.  Should this bug be considered fixed?
Comment 5 Christopher Blizzard 2003-01-31 17:20:00 UTC 
Ahh, yes.  Thanks.  I forgot to close the bug.  You're not having any more
problems with that, right?