On 14 Oct 2013, at 10:28, rfink0...@gmail.com wrote: > My beef is that we still seem to be talking about fonts as tools for the > graphic arts. When it comes to fonts for the web, what is being offered is > still a joke. (Yes, there are always exceptions - don't pounce.) > > Bottom line this: Quality is not what the maker puts in, it's what the > buyer/user gets out. The maker does not define what constitutes quality. > (Most importantly, do NOT equate the need for time-consuming fussiness with > "quality". A lot of fuss is indicative of nothing except an inefficient > manufacturing system.) > > This notion is certainly not original to me. (Read Peter Drucker on the > subject, or Edward Deming - the father of modern Statistical Quality Control > in manufacturing.)
Nail on head. 20+ years ago, fonts were largely professional tools, used almost exclusively in publishing (desktop or corporate). That exclusive role is now history, just as the era when fonts were only housed at the printer, as metal, is history. Fonts are now 'for everyone', and to cater to that new, mass market, the old products need some change and they need some differing approaches than before. This all could be an interesting discussion, except I read Tom's article not as part of any discussion, but as a piece of Online Advertising for the WebInk product. Tom is just saying "hey, use our stuff. Your stupid if you use that free stuff." I think that sort of journo-advertising would be better effective by showing people why the WebInk product is really good, what sets it apart positively from other webfont services, and ultimately why its target users should invest in it. Dissing other people's more poular output never looks good, it 'turns on' a few people, but 'turns off' a lot more. It's bad branding 101. -v
