Rich, your directness makes me laugh :D There’s something of The Onion about all this; “Local man thoroughly unimpressed by 30–40% of commercial fonts”. Didn’t they once run a story “Local man shuns restaurant because of bad kerning in menu”?
also, talking of keeping objective, which is the lesser font quality; a font that ‘sucks’? or a font that ‘stinks’? -v On 29 Oct 2013, at 09:04, rfink0...@gmail.com wrote: > If you think for one second that the following statement from your article > has anything to do with "font quality" or possesses any objectivity, or is > helpful to anyone in any way, you are fooling yourself: > > "I am pretty harsh about font quality. Most of the fonts I have made have > never shipped, because my conceptions of quality early on outstripped my > ability to execute at that quality level. So I will be the first to say that > there are plenty of commercial fonts that suck. Easily 30–40% of commercial > fonts leave me thoroughly unimpressed. If you look at libre fonts, and use > the Google Fonts collection as your baseline, maybe 65% of those fonts suck. > If you just look at all free fonts on dafont, maybe 95% of those fonts stink." > > Bet the statement above got a big round of applause at ATYPI! > > You can say it ain't so over and over again till you are blue in the face but > this is about "my shit doesn't stink but yours does".
