Restore substantive findings to fonts chapter introduction

[charlesberret]

Summary

This revises the fonts chapter introduction to restore key 2025 statistics and findings that were removed in #4353, while remaining more concise than the original version.

Changes:

• Restores 2025 adoption stats (88% of websites using web fonts)
• Restores Google Fonts/Adobe/Font Awesome market share data
• Restores self-hosting trend data (72% of sites)
• Condenses WOFF2, performance techniques, font canon, and global typography findings into a single paragraph
• Fixes grammatical error ("which fonts are used in, how non-Latin languages...")
• Preserves all structural improvements from Font 2025 chapter edits #4353 (figures, charts, callouts)

The intro now provides substantive context for readers while being shorter than the original.

[tunetheweb]

My concerns with the previous introduction where not just about length but also that, as noted here, it's not in the Web Almanac style to preempt findings in the Introduction. We want the data to do the talking, along with the expertise of the author. Front-loading the data work against that and offers conclusions making this, and the rest of the stats less interesting—why bother reading the whole chapter when I've already got the main points up front.

I accept that the stats were also front-loaded in the 2024 Introduction but that was a mistake that should not have happen then but I missed it. If you look at other chapters throughout the 6 years of the Web Almanac this is the exception not the common case.

Additionally, front-loading the stats is repetitive when we call out stats in the introduction, in the body, and in the conclusion. As I said in the edit PR:

I know the mantra of “Tell them what you’re going to tell them. Tell them. Tell them what you told them.” but it reads pretty repetitive here, as well as making it very wordy. Plus the Web Almanac style is not to give away all the goodies in the intro.

I know I made those edits without your approval, but I did warn you this would happen, tagged you in the edit PR and left it open as long as I could for you to object then, before I had to merge it, to allow the chapter to be included in the launch. Unfortunately that's the risk of raising the PR only days before launch, but unfortunately that's what tends to happen with this project.

So I'm happy to accept grammatical fixes, and if you want to rewrite this in other ways without foreshadowing the conclusion and certainly the stats.

[tunetheweb]

Thanks for understanding!

I’ll also update the authors guide to make this clearer in future.