After months of work, here it is: the new A Way with Words website.

We took a lot of things into account in the renovation, but the biggest category of considerations has been what you, our listeners and visitors, needed. We not only gave you what you asked for, we gave you a whole lot more to enhance your experience of the site. Let us know what you think.

Compare the new and old sites side by side:


What we’ve done:

We revamped the look and feel of the site.

• We discarded most of the shocking yellow and blue and went for something a bit more like the printed page with a few yellow highlights here and there.

• We took our photo off the header (Grant calls it “the walrus and the princess”). If you want to see what Martha and Grant look like, there are photos on the About page.

• You’ll also see slightly larger text everywhere, which is easier to read on desktops and mobile devices.

• We’re also now using more and larger images, we have revamped the look of the discussion forum (and updated its software), and we have made hundreds of tweaks throughout the entire site.

We’ve made it easier to find what you want.

• There’s now a site-wide search button in the upper right corner of every page. If that’s not good enough, you can also use a Google Custom Search, which lets you use the usual Google operators and options.

• We’ve also added a new floating navigation bar to the top of the page that stays visible as you scroll and browse. With it, we’ve tried to strike a balance between utility and unobtrusiveness. It contains links to everything you might want to know or do.

Every episode page is being overhauled.

• We’re still working our way through the back catalog of episodes, but the last ten or so episodes already show immense improvements.

• On each episode page, we now include a list of music broadcast during the episode. This is a direct response to the very large amount of email we receive complimenting our editor and engineer, Tim Felten, on his music choices (he has a funky, gritty soul).

• We also include a list of books mentioned in the episode. That’s in response to the frequent messages we get from people who were driving or cooking or otherwise occupied when we mentioned a book worth remembering.

• We are creating individual pages for each segment of each show, and linking between them and their parent episodes. This means, for example, that if you only want to browse the word-puzzle segments, you can. Of course, it also makes it easier to re-listen to any segment of a show without having to guess where it starts in the full episode file.

• We’re also now using the SoundCloud player for in-browser playback of episodes and segments. SoundCloud is like YouTube for audio, with a host of social features, such as the ability to link comments to specific moments in the audio. Try it! Here’s a live player:

• We’ve turned commenting on for all posts on this site and linked them to the forum, so the same conversation can be held and read in both places. This is provisional. We think the anti-spam tools we have will stop the flood of spam comments but if it turns out not to be the case, we may have to disable commenting on stories again. (Spammers haven’t changed their ways in the five years since we first launched the site, alas.)

We’ve made the website work far better on mobile.

• When we first launched our website in 2007, mobile streaming and listening weren’t something we had to take into account. We went from less than 1% of our website traffic being on mobile in 2007 to almost 25% on mobile in 2012. Now we can’t not take mobile into account.

• To make the site nice to look at on small screens, we’re using a “responsive” framework — PageLines — that neatly changes its configuration depending upon the width of the browser. Images resize automatically. Boxes reflow. The menu across the top turns into a simple drop-down. You can try it now by dragging the right edge of your browser to the left.

• We’re also using an episode player at the top of every screen so mobile users don’t have to hunt around to hear the latest episode.

• We’ve had them for quite a while, but now we’re drawing attention to our apps for iOS, Android, and Blackberry. You can click those links or always find them in the Listen menu above. Our apps are not free but they’re inexpensive and our nonprofit makes a small commission off of each sale.

Even more language content has been added.

• Not only are we giving each segment its own page, we’ve also added in all the back issues of our newsletter, and we’re integrating more than 18,000 records from Grant’s Double-Tongued Dictionary. You can find it in the navigation menu at Dictionary under Explore. Read more about the dictionary and what it means for A Way with Words to be its new home.

• We’ve also fired up a blog. You’ll not only find our newsletters posted in full there, and our episode announcements, but new entries in our Dictionary, and brand-new follow-ups to calls we take on the show, featuring listener responses and new information.

Browse just the newsletters here.

• We’ve also completely rewritten every regular page on the site. We recommend trying all the menu items in the navigation bar above, starting with the About page.

More social media.

Another thing that wasn’t very widespread in 2007 was social media. Facebook, Twitter, and SoundCloud had yet to gain their place as important social tools.

So, we’ve made it easier to like and share our content using a variety of social media services. Look for this bar below every post:

Of course, that’s self-serving, too. We want people to share our stuff!

But there’s another aspect to it: we want you to be able to find us where you want us. If you prefer to find out about new episodes on Twitter, great. Facebook? Fine. We aim to make that easier.

Adding to the bottom line.

This show is funded by a diversity of income streams of varying sizes, and we’ve long known that our listeners wanted swag or merchandise.

• So, we’ve created a Zazzle affiliate store, where you can buy logoed items of the usual sorts: coffee mugs, tote bags, T-shirts, what have you. Every sale there nets our nonprofit a small commission. We’ll be adding new items as they occur to us — and if you have ideas for T-shirts we’d love to hear about them!

• Similarly, we’ve set up an Amazon bookstore, stocking it books we know and like, including many of the titles we talk about on the show. There’s also an Amazon music section, featuring awesome tunes picked by the aforementioned Tim Felten, our engineer and editor, including the same songs you hear during our broadcasts.

• Additionally, when we mention a book or song in the text of one of our site posts, we’ll link using our Amazon affiliate code. If you click on the link and buy on the spot, that, too, will generate a small commission for our nonprofit.

A note on compatibility.

We have tried to make the new site backward-compatible with older browsers as much as possible. However, if you are using an older browser, some features will not work as we intend.

If you can, do try to upgrade to the very latest browser. We recommend Google Chrome. Your Internet experience will be improved not just here but across the entire web.

Here’s a very thorough but friendly explanation of why it’s a good idea.

We’re not done.

You’ll see more tweaks and changes over the coming weeks.

For one thing, we still have a long list of to-dos of the hopeful and if-time-allows kind.

For another, we’ll be updating all of our old episode pages to have the features described above.

But more importantly, we’ll be paying attention to how the new design is working, we’ll be reading and listening to your feedback, and we’ll be fixing or revising where needed.

All responses welcomed, as always.

Your radio pals from the Nerd Club of the Air,


Martha Barnette and Grant Barrett
co-hosts of A Way with Words

Photo by Rick Harris. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Tagged with →  

36 Responses

  1. Jackie says:

    I’m replying to figure out just how the new format works.   The old format showed me the topics I’d commented on and also allowed me to see the topics that had new responses since my last visit.  

  2. Jackie says:

    I see nothing different on the forum topics page re: my last post.   Can anyone clue me in?

  3. Jackie, it’s possible that I need to enable that feature in the forum software. It’s a drastically different version behind the scenes and I had to reset many of the options and preferences.

    Let me test this a bit and see if I can figure out how to give you that dashboard-like feature.

  4. Okay, I’ve re-enabled some icons and stuff that I’d turned off for the sake of decrufting. Let me know if you see the “new posts since your last visit” icons and the like.

  5. Heimhenge says:

    I sent this to the email link for feedback in Grant’s initial post to this thread, but I’ll also post my feedback here, just in case other members want to voice their agreement or disagreement …


    Hi Grant & Martha,

    I wasn’t sure if I should add comments at the end of your lengthy “New Website Format” thread or do it this way, but I see no feedback there in close to 24 hours so I’ll use this email link from that thread.

    1. You obviously spent a lot of time on this revision. I like the fact that the Double-Tongued Dictionary is now a part of this site. Thanks for all the hard work!

    2. When I first posted in the new site, I missed that captcha at the bottom. I have my own blog and recently turned off comments for the same reason. Even with the Spam Free WordPress plugin, the spammers were still finding a way to do their thing. So I feel your pain, and understand the need for that captcha. Thanks for at least making it an easy one to use. Any chance established forum members could be “grandfathered in” and not have to go through that step for the first post after login?

    3. When a page changes or reloads, there’s a LOT of stuff loading, and the scrolling is jerky until the whole page is loaded. And I have high-speed ADSL. Probably nothing that can be done about that. Content is content, and there’s really nothing unnecessary on the pages, but I thought I’d mention that.

    4. The font color is just a bit too light for my eyes. Especially in quoted block text. I mean, I can read it, but it just seems too light. Don’t know what others are saying. My two cents.

    Anyway, thanks again for all the work. Overall … I’d give it a 9 outa 10.

  6. Thanks, much appreciated. Are these comments about the whole site or just the forums?

    I’ve been mulling over darkening the font everywhere, too, so it’s good to have another vote for that.

    Once you’ve made a post on the newly updated forum, you should be grandfathered in from then on out, even after another login. Let me know if that’s not happening for you and I will look into it.

    There are some tweaks left to do on the site that will speed it up and there is auto-tagging going on, too. That said, we’re constantly looking for ways to make the site faster. Expect that to get better over time. We may also look into one of the free content delivery networks to see if that’s worth the effort.

  7. LizinSavannah says:

    I vote with Heimhenge. I don’t know about Hh, but I have older eyes and notice that younger people make websites that are often harder for those of us in the older demographic to read easily. Thanks, Grant, for considering fixing the fonts.

  8. Jackie says:

    Grant, I see a drop-down box with new/updated topics and just under that “(0) topics with unread posts”.   Still don’t see any indication of where I’ve posted.   I realize this is all new and I’m sure there’s lots that will be tweaked and played with.

    I’ve been wandering around the website.   The changes look good!   I can’t imagine how much work it’s been.

    I’ll second Heimhenge that the font color is too light.   It’s a little hard to read.   I haven’t noticed any problems in the scrolling, though.

  9. Jackie, the only way I see to view one’s own posts is to click on one’s own avatar, which will reveal your profile. There you can select “List of topics you have posted to.”

  10. Heimhenge says:

    At Grant’s request: Testing 123. Let’s see if I get that captcha again …

    Nope. Got the “Unable to save” error message again. Needed to do the captcha to post this response.

    Now I’ll try again during this same logon session.

  11. Heimhenge says:

    Testing 456.

    Nope. Got the captcha error again.

  12. Okay, let me look at the forum settings and see if there’s a way to simplify this.

  13. Heimhenge, I found a solution and verified it with a non-admin account. You should no longer be seeing the drag-and-drop captcha when posting comments.

  14. Bob Bridges says:

    Well, since you’re taking votes.   (Mine count only regarding the forum, since that’s all I ever look at—I’m a word nerd.)   I wouldn’t say the font is too light for easy reading; but it’s light enough that I’d probably like it slightly darker.   Sounds like you’re heading in that direction anyway, so no need to belabor it.

    Obviously you spent a lot of time debating fonts, so it’s a shame to find fault with them now that you’re committed.   But I do a lot of writing so I’m opinionated.   I much prefer a typeface for which my PC has true italics, not just a version of italic that’s manufactured by slanting the roman typeface to the right (thus spoiling the kerning).   Sometimes I have to look around for one of those, but most PCs have Times and Century Schoolbook installed these days, and where Century Schoolbook is missing the Georgia works well.   I don’t mind that the draft font is sans serif, but whatever you’re using has the same difficulty.   And your “content” font—I couldn’t find its name, but it looks like a sort of proportional flavor of Courier—is too blocky for my taste.

    It’s too big for my taste, too, but I’ve always had high-resolution eyes so I don’t think my vote should count for much in that area.   Now that I’m in my late 50s my eyesight (corrected for ordinary presbyopia) is degraded to something in the neighborhood of 20-17, but I still crank up the resolution on my monitor as high as it’ll go.   I’ll be down to 20-20 soon, I’m sure, and then I’ll be glad you paid no attention to my complaints.

    I do like the anti-bot measure: simple, easy to understand, not time-consuming to operate.   No doubt an enterprising spammer could write a way around it, but it would require more work than spamming a single site would repay, so I expect it’ll be perfectly adequate.   Did you think that up, or has it become more or less standard these days?   I’ve never encountered it before.

    As for the other features, I haven’t explored enough to know what else has changed.   I guess I could do with less white space.

  15. I have already darkened the body font substantially. Are you saying it’s still too light?

    it looks like a sort of proportional flavor of Courier

    Really?! It shouldn’t. Can you post a screen grab of what you’re seeing? And tell me the OS, browser, and version?

    The serif font we’re using is Merriweather, a Google font, at font-weight 300, which is “book” size:

    If Merriweather doesn’t work in your browser, it should fall back to your browser’s default serif.

    The anti-bot measure is not common but it comes with Simple Press, the forum software we use. It’s pretty clever, right?

  16. Heimhenge says:

    Testing 789 …

    Yep, works fine now. No captcha this time around. You fixed it! Thanks Grant.

    And the font contrast is fine now. At least for my eyes. BTW, browser is Firefox 12.0, OS W2K Pro.

  17. Raffee says:

     I think that the color should be a bit darker, like what I’m seeing right now while writing this, and so much the better if a background color is added as well.

    BTW, thanks for your works on the site.


    I don’t know why the timing does not match with the current time. I was writing at about 4:05 pm, but my post showed 4:37 am!

  18. Jackie says:

    The font contrast is much better now.   Thanks, Grant!  

  19. Heimhenge says:

    Well, I have to retract my comment about the new font contrast being fine. In the regular text of a thread, it is. But go to any thread where someone uses a block quote, and you’ll see those are still tough to read. Maybe use a different font for the block quotes (if possible)?

    Unlike Bob, I don’t mind the extra “white space.” Better that than filling it with clutter and increasing the page load time. That “white space” is created by Grant’s choice of sidebar width in the page layout. I don’t think it’s possible to only extend that sidebar down part of the page, so if you need the sidebar for those links and social media buttons at the top of this thread, you’re gonna get some white space down below.

    The only way to reduce the “white space” would be to go to a smaller font, which would reduce the height of the page. Well, either that or reduce the width of the sidebar. And you might be able to reduce it a bit.

  20. Rafee, the time shown is the time here in San Diego, where we record the show.

    Bob, I’ll look into the blockquotes. I believe I have already solved it on the blog post side, as here:

    That shows a change nobody has commented on yet, by the way — that now the forum comments are appearing under the original blog post to which they’re attached. (Still working on getting the comment count right over there, though.)

  21. Bob Bridges says:

    Heimhenge said
    Well, I have to retract my comment about the new font contrast being fine. In the regular text of a thread, it is. But go to any thread where someone uses a block quote, and you’ll see those are still tough to read.

    Grant Barrett said
    Bob, I’ll look into the blockquotes.

    I wasn’t complaining about blockquote; I just said the spPostContent typeface looked blocky. But I went out and found a blockquote, just to see what the heck Heimhenge was talking about, and although it doesn’t give me any trouble I agree that blockquotes look a little lighter than the regular text. I can’t be sure whether that’s because they actually are, or they just look that way against the slightly darker background.

    Bob Bridges said
    ….your “content” font—I couldn’t find its name, but it looks like a sort of proportional flavor of Courier—is too blocky for my taste.

    Grant Barrett said
    Really?! It shouldn’t. Can you post a screen grab of what you’re seeing? And tell me the OS, browser, and version?

    Windows XP. I just upgraded Firefox yesterday and this morning; it’s now it’s Mozilla Firefox 14.0.1. I have the screen shots you asked for, but how do I get them to you? Feel free to email me as a sidebar if that’s the most convenient way.

    Grant Barrett said
    The serif font we’re using is Merriweather, a Google font, at font-weight 300, which is “book” size:….If Merriweather doesn’t work in your browser, it should fall back to your browser’s default serif.

    I checked that link, but of course the font there looks the same as it does in your style spPostContent.

    Heimhenge said
    Unlike Bob, I don’t mind the extra “white space.” Better that than filling it with clutter and increasing the page load time. That “white space” is created by Grant’s choice of sidebar width…

    Yeah, I don’t think there’s much that can be done about the sidebar. But there’s a lot of vertical white space as well. Minor complaint, though.

    Bob Bridges said
    I much prefer a typeface for which my PC has true italics, not just a version of italic that’s manufactured by slanting the roman typeface to the right (thus spoiling the kerning).   Sometimes I have to look around for one of those, but most PCs have Times and Century Schoolbook installed these days, and where Century Schoolbook is missing the Georgia works well.   I don’t mind that the draft font is sans serif, but whatever you’re using has the same difficulty.

    To be clearer: Actually I don’t know how the spPostContent typeface looks in italic yet.   (Let’s take a look now.)   But the san-serif draft font—I think it’s Tahoma 11- or 12-pt—doesn’t have a true italic version so Windows (I suppose it’s Windows) manufactures it on the fly by slanting the roman typeface, which looks terrible.   (Yeah, yeah, I know, it’s just a draft font.   So I’m picky—so sue me.)   Arial doesn’t have that problem; it has true italic.   Verdana looks a lot like Tahoma and its italic is much better.   Franklin Gothic is another possibility; I don’t think it’s as attractive, but it has a lot of white space so maybe you’ll like it, heh, heh.   All three are pretty commonly available on Windows machines; Arial is nearly universal.   I have screen shots of these, too, to demonstrate what I’m talking about.

    Grant Barrett said
    The anti-bot measure is not common but it comes with Simple Press, the forum software we use. It’s pretty clever, right?

    Yes, I agree.

  22. Bob, do you see an “upload attachments” link under the reply text area? If so, that’s how you upload a screen grab.

  23. Bob Bridges says:

    I already looked, but I didn’t see one.   Oh, wait, below—ok, I see it.

    I was going to include a ReadMe so there’d be no doubt about which files indicate what, but apparently only JPEGs and GIFs are allowed so I’ll explain here:

    Teacher spPostContent.bmp: A partial screenshot showing how your Merriweather 300 font shows on my browser.

    Teacher draft.bmp: The same for the draft area; this uses the font that I’m guessing is Tahoma, and I show some italics that are distorted.

    I was going to include Teacher samples.rtf, demonstrating a number of fonts in roman and italic, showing how some fonts distort their italics in various ways and others don’t.   But it turns out .rtfs aren’t accepted, either, so there’s a partial screen shot of it in Teacher samples.bmp.

  24. GBTestUser says:

    This is Grant testing the “upload attachments” function.

  25. GBTestUser says:

    And it seems to not be displaying the images after upload. I’ll add it to the “to fix” list. :/

  26. RobertB says:

    I wish to know how to put on animated avatar like the page turning book that Glenn used to have.

  27. Heimhenge says:

    That’s what’s called an animated GIF. Just a series of still images stitched together. You can probably find a free app that will do the GIF creation, and let you specify how long each image is displayed, and whether or not it loops. Also, you’ll need to come up with the still images somehow. I do all mine in Corel PhotoPaint and Corel Draw.

    EDIT: Just realized you said “used to” and noticed my avatar is also gone.

    Grant: Are we gonna need to re-upload our avatars, or can you do that on your end?

    ANOTHER EDIT: Oops … just checked and see that the avatars are now limited to 40 pixels width. So I re-uploaded mine. Personally, I think 40 pixels is a bit small. Grant, any chance we could go back to the old larger format? I think those were 100 pixels width?

  28. Oh, but the avatars are a pain in my tuchus. The bigger ones add an unnecessary download overhead on an already not superfast site (though if you’re not logged in it should be much, much faster, as you’d be pulling from a cache that logged in users don’t use because the expectation is that logged in users are doing lots of stuff and caching would be a hindrance).

    RobertB, you should be able to upload an avatar on your user page. Just click on your name in this thread or find the “profile” link at the very top of the forum to get there. Here it is, anyway:

  29. Heimhenge says:

    Question for Grant: Is the new website (which I’m finally starting to get used to) detecting my monitor resolution and selecting the CSS for best display? I ask, because the font size still seems a bit large. What I see on my 24″ monitor (1920×1200) looks like 14 pt to me. I can’t imagine what it looks like on a lower res display, but I’m guessing the font would look even larger (unless you’re detecting and adjusting for it).

    BTW, I hear what you’re saying about avatars and page load time. Unfortunately, my avatar looks cruddy at 40×40, so I might just redo it. But again, thanks for what was obviously a LOT of work on the redesign.

  30. I don’t think your browser is resizing the text. I think it’s just the large body type size. It is larger than it was!

  31. Raffee says:

    Despite the prognostication about the improvement of the loading speed, most of the times it takes me a long time (Just spent 5 min) to load just the first page, and it happens for other pages too. Why is it that?

  32. Five minutes to load a single page is far outside of what I’m seeing here.

    The page load times have definitely improved in the last week. We’ve removed a bunch of javascripts that were loading on every page, we’ve reduced the size of every image, we’ve enabled a caching plugin (which has had the most dramatic effect), and we’ve disabled some plugins that were running but weren’t being used.

    A Pingdom test of the front page just took 3.46 seconds to load the front page from Amsterdam, which is almost a two-second improvement since the site first launched.

    Now, using a different testing system,, the loading times are much, much worse when loading from China, 38.591s on the first view, and 47.319s on the second view. These are the worst loading times I could create — I intentionally tried to get the slowest times I could. If you are behind an Internet connect that uses filtering proxies put in place by a government, school, or employer, you will see much slower times. More typical load times far from our data center are those I got for Moscow, 12.106 on first load, 4.451s on second.

    That said, there’s always room for improvement and there are plans for a few more speed improvements in the works. One of the things that I’ve been thinking about is that having the Twitter “follow” button on every page means being subject to that service’s ups and downs. On the WebPageTest test just now, the Twitter javascript was the slowest thing to load — it didn’t, in fact.

    The Facebook plugin is similar. It loads on every page — and together its Javascripts are the single largest delivered payload on any page, except the front page, where the images on the featured slider are bigger.

    After that is the SoundCloud player, which loads under the “Listen” item at the top of every page. Right now, if it detects the Flash plugin, it loads the Flash player, which is kind of hefty. If it doesn’t find it, it loads the HTML5 player, which is lighter. I could reverse those. But the install base of Flash is something like 94%, while the number of HTML5-compatible browsers is detected at around 70%. And the Flash player looks nicer. 🙂

    Another thing to keep in mind is that the site is slower if you’re logged in. This is because the caching — which works very well — is only enabled for unlogged users. The assumption by the caching system (and most caching systems) is that logged in users are doing stuff and need pages to refresh instantly so that their comments and other actions become visible immediately. If I enabled caching for logged-in users, then it would take five minutes for you to see your new comments and similar things. I may yet try it if all you forum regulars are willing to risk a bit of weirdness and help decide if it’s worth it or not.

    I may also use a CDN. A Content Delivery Network is designed to host files on superfast systems and networks, in order to make a site more bulletproof, but also improve load times. We’d start with a free CDN and see if that helped. It doesn’t always, though, because one’s hosting provider might already have similar systems in place behind the scenes and one might not know it. This may be the first, next speed improvement I test because if it works, it should be a dramatic improvement for everyone.

    Finally, last night I made immense changes to thousands of records in our database to fix a character-encoding issue. This means that nearly every page’s cache would need to be rebuilt the first time the page loads, and that Google and the other search indexers would have to recrawl every page because they would get a “page-modified” header. That will put some more strain on the site, so the site will be slower than normal until recaching is done.

    Keep those reports coming! I do want to hear about your experiences here and I will try to accommodate all requests.

    Cheers, your friendly tech guy/radio host/dogsbody.

  33. I just made a change in the caching that had a positive effect.

    Dulles, VA via Pingdom: 2.24s. Reduced 1.22s
    Moscow: via WebPageTest: 9.023s on first load, 4.447 on second load. Reduced 3.08s on first load.

  34. Heimhenge says:

    I can already see faster page loads compared to right after the website overhaul. FWIW, after clearing my cache in Firefox 12.0 running on W2K, the main page loads in less than 20 seconds. I have 1.5 Mbps DSL, but the internet speed test says I’m getting only 1.32 Mbps this morning. And I do have Flash installed. I don’t at all mind further experimentation with the site.

  35. Bob Bridges says:

    Even though I’m what is sometimes laughingly called a computer professional, my personal PCs have been few and far between.   I bought my first in 1996.   I replaced it in 2004 only when a certain job-hunting web site informed me that it would no longer work with my current Netscape version, and the Netscape site that it couldn’t go to the next version on my current PC.   So I broke down and bought a laptop, my first.

    That laptop is still my only home PC.   It has half a gig of RAM, because back in 2004 that amount seemed like ludicrous overkill.   I think its hard drive has 40 gig on it; might be 80.   I’ve decided it’s time to replace it with something better and faster—something with as much RAM as I can cram into it, for sure, but I still probably will settle for a small HD, maybe 100GB if they make them that small—if I can only get around to it.

    I say all this to explain why my PC is constantly stopping, sometimes for long periods, to think about web pages.   But except for the frequent occasions when it’s hung up running scripts, I’ve never had to wait more than 15 or 20 seconds to load a page here, that I recall.


  36. Bob Bridges says:

    Grant, I know it’s too late about the font, but I just noticed this:   I could wish you guys had not picked a font that uses descenders for numerals.   I just posted a thread in which I wanted to write a large number as “4e78”, which works ok in some typefaces including your draft font, but in Merriweather (or at least in Merriweather as my browser displays it) the descenders make it less easy to see what’s going on so I ended up writing “4×1078” instead.

    Of course, if you tell me that Merriweather doesn’t use descenders for numerals, it just proves that I need to download the Merriweather font manually.