Talk:Lucida Grande

Typography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TypographyWikipedia:WikiProject TypographyTemplate:WikiProject TypographyTypography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Apple Inc. Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mac OSX

Mac OSX (10.5) Leopard is supposed to not use Lucida Grande. I wonder what font will be used.

Where do I download this font?

I downloaded Lucida Grande from (removed). Could somebody include that in the article, please?84.178.76.125 13:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook?

Who added that it is used on Facebook? Facebook logo is some other font and the style sheet (http://static.ak.facebook.com/css/common.css.pkg.php?c=39:43:73906) specifying font-family:"lucida grande", tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif doesn't precisely mean that the interface is displayed with Lucida Grande. Actually on Windows it's Tahoma by default. There are plenty of web designers who use Macs these days and specify font-family starting with Lucida Grande like Facebook (e. g. veerle.duoh.com, hicksdesign.co.uk). I'll delete this info. 83.9.108.191 (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Facebook's logo is not Grande, but its interface text is. (The same applies to Wikipedia – logo is a serif font, but texts throughout the site are set in sans serif.) That particular sequence of fonts you quoted actually means that Lucida Grande is default. CSS use the first available font in the list. That means, if on a Mac it happens that Lucida Grande is absent, Tahoma will then be used. Likewise, I've used Facebook on Windows that has Lucida Grande installed, and Facebook rendered Grande instead of Tahoma. So, I think it's not the case that "Tahoma is default on Windows".

By the way, your paragraph appears twice (identically) on this page. Please don't mind I took the liberty to delete the duplicate one. Tonyngkh (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But can you freely download Lucida Grande without violating its licence agreement ? Also, I suppose that Facebook could have added "Lucida Sans" (bundled with every Windows since 98) or used the CSS3 font-face property if their intent was really to use Lucida by default everywhere. Hell Pé (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Font name in Infobox?

Had a quick glance through the page history. The family name (or font name) above the Infobox got erased and re-added for a few times. Let's come to a decision here to avoid further edits focusing only on this. From my viewpoint, although the family name appears right at the top of the sample (with fairly large font size), the caption above functions a bit differently (at least to me). The text caption indicates family name and fonts name(s), while within the sample various strings of texts showcase the font—using the font name to do so is just one of the ways. I feel it's more comfortable even though the name appear again right below (see Calibri). I think it's reasonable to make this (keeping the caption) a convention because not all pages have image samples. BUT, it happens that many other pages have got the lines above the Infobox ripped off (see Arial, Times Roman, Segoe#Segoe UI), generating a new de-facto convention. Ok, in short, I'd like to keep the caption. Your thoughts? Tonyngkh (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]