Created attachment 196316 [details] Shapes with text to compare font metrics Current MS Office uses as default the font "Aptos". This font is often not available on the user PC. Even if someone has installed a MS Office, the font files are not automatically installed, but MS Office downloads them when needed. Thus in most cases the font is not available for LibreOffice. The font "Source Sans Pro" is a good candidate for fallback for "Aptos" and should be tested first. The "Source Sans Pro" has letter-spacing and line distance similar to "Aptos". The font "Source Sans Pro" is free available, so that users can install it. When "Source Sans Pro" is not available on the users PC, still another sans-serif font can be chosen, but "Source Sans Pro" should be the first font to test. The attached file contains the same text and shapes only with different font. The first line has the shapes and the second line has a screenshot. I work on Windows 11 and all four used fonts are installed.
Maybe. But how useful would this really be? The example presentation is just Aptos normal--and yes the Source Sans Pro at least is close in metrics in width if not the height/leading. Does that hold though with Aptos light, semi-bold, bold, extra-bold, black and their italic rendering. And, what of Aptos's other faces? Narrow, Serif, Display and Mono... If we had the Aptos fallback hardcoded would we then be well served/forced to restore bundling of Source Sans Pro (dropped for bug 136604, though restored to CO)?
(In reply to Regina Henschel from comment #0) > The "Source Sans Pro" has letter-spacing and line > distance similar to "Aptos". 1. How similar? 2. Has this been studied methodically, or is it more of a cursory impression? 3. What is the set of freely-redistributable fonts from which Source Sans Pro was chosen as the closest?
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #2) > (In reply to Regina Henschel from comment #0) > > The "Source Sans Pro" has letter-spacing and line > > distance similar to "Aptos". > > 1. How similar? 45 lines, 12pt: Aptos 227mm, Source Sans Pro 234mm, Arial & Liberation Sans 213mm, DejaVu Sans 217mm, Noto Sans >252mm, Tahoma 225mm inside a line, same text part: Aptos 144mm, Source Sans Pro 140mm, Arial & Liberation Sans 149mm, DejaVu Sans >168mm, Noto Sans 158mm, Tahoma 150mm Of cause it would be nice to have a free font that has metrics as similar as Liberation Sans to Arial. > 2. Has this been studied methodically, or is it more of a cursory impression? Not methodically, I have used only some fonts I have installed. > 3. What is the set of freely-redistributable fonts from which Source Sans > Pro was chosen as the closest? Besides the above also Verdana and Segoe UI (not free, but available on Windows). (In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #1) > Maybe. > > But how useful would this really be? The example presentation is just Aptos > normal--and yes the Source Sans Pro at least is close in metrics in width if > not the height/leading. Does that hold though with Aptos light, semi-bold, > bold, extra-bold, black and their italic rendering. And, what of Aptos's > other faces? Narrow, Serif, Display and Mono... We only need to consider those variants that are used as default in MS Office. I think, that are Aptos and Aptos Display for text in presentations and Aptos Narrow for table cells in spreadsheets. Word uses Calibri. > > If we had the Aptos fallback hardcoded would we then be well served/forced > to restore bundling of Source Sans Pro (dropped for bug 136604, though > restored to CO)? In my opinion, it need not be bundled. But a hint or link on the download page would be useful. Especially text in shapes need a font similar to Aptos, otherwise you get ugly text overflow.
Created attachment 196411 [details] font metrics Aptos 1.09, Source Sans 3 3.052 and Source Sans Pro 2.010 (In reply to Regina Henschel from comment #3) I fired up FontForge and compared metrics (both general and OS/2) for "Aptos" 1.09 regular to "Source Sans Pro" 2.010 and "Source Sans 3" 3.052 regular. Metrics are nowhere near equivalent. Aptos is on a 2048 em base line, Source Sans on 1000 em. They scale their outlines, so effective size is relative to their metrics, but the ratio when scaled are not that close in vertical or horizontal metric. That aside, until something better to use as fall back for Aptos fontfamily the VCL.xcu does need *some* "SubstFonts" entry made to support Aptos fallback--not ideal but using Source Sans 3 (and Source Sans Pro) is minimally functional.
Created attachment 196412 [details] font metrics Aptos 1.09, Source Sans 3 3.052 and Source Sans Pro 2.010 replacement screen clip with all metrics
Created attachment 196495 [details] Comparison of Aptos, Source Sans 3, Source Sans Pro, Verdana, Segoe UI (ODT) Comparison of the typefaces mentioned in this bug. Only usable if you actually have them all installed. PDF to be attached soon.
Created attachment 196496 [details] Comparison of Aptos, Source Sans 3, Source Sans Pro, Verdana, Segoe UI (PDF) Comparison of the typefaces mentioned in this bug. Only usable if you actually have them all installed. ODT is in attachment 196495 [details].
Though Aptos has a decent similarity with Source Sans Pro, the metrics are not close enough for it to be a proper equivalent. At the same time... perhaps it's better to have this fallback than let the OS choose the default fallback, until we have an actual metric equivalent. There might still be a freely-redistributable sans-serif font that's metrically closer to Aptos, though.
looking at comment 4 and comment 8; OK to pick * as a temporary fall back
We discussed the topic in the design meeting. As long we do not have a good alternative it makes sense to use SSP as fallback. Assuming Aptos becomes more and more popular it might require bundling SSP again.