Fontbakery: com.google.fonts/check/008 should list differing values.

[madig]

Analogous to #1684, this test should list everything that differs.

I think this should be a general principle when comparing family members. Always tell the user what differs where so he can find and fix the error quickly.

[felipesanches]

thanks for reporting this :-)

[felipesanches]

[davelab6]

In https://github.com/Omnibus-Type/Sansita/issues/4 there is user feedback that this check is tooooo opinionated.

It should accept if a family has a progressing set of underline values that match the weight progression

Also the paths are bit distracting, I'm not sure they are relevant, just filename and extension is ok

[m4rc1e]

For the rationale on this test we have:

Dave C Lemon (Adobe Type Team) recommends setting the underline thickness to be consistent across the family. If thicknesses are not family consistent, words set on the same line which have different styles look strange. See also: https://twitter.com/typenerd1/status/690361887926697986

I really have no opinion on this check. It's not going to break the fonts if the underline thicknesses are different, it's just opinions.

[m4rc1e]

Hilariously I wrote the rationale for this ;-) https://github.com/googlefonts/fontbakery/issues/1692

pot, kettle, black

[felipesanches]

what should we do, then?

[m4rc1e]

Perhaps we should downgrade this to WARN?

Imo FAIL should only be used for very serious issues. Underline thickness isn't a major.

[davelab6]

While not that major, I think its important to get this improved across the catalog as a sign of quality, so I want to keep the FAIL status, but I think we should accept both the Lemon Approach and the Cosgaya Approach :)