Sure, i know Thomas doesnt mention webink in his criticism. I have read his article :) But looking back at the webink situation is a good way of providing an alternative lense through which to look at the Libre fonts that Thomas has criticised on his blog. It's often enlightening to compare 'similar' products, and ask why does one have any edge on another. Seems like a rather obvious link to make to me. I think if you open up a debate or offer public criticism on an issue you should expect to be openly debated and counter criticised on that same issue. I'm just returning the favour, and offering some positive criticism on WebINK, which i think clearly needs a shot in the arm, when compared to it's competitors.
-v On 16 Oct 2013, at 13:45, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: > Thomas really isn't comparing the libre fonts in Google's library to > the WebINK library, though. He doesn't mention WebINK once, he posted > it on his personal blog... your criticism still seems to be rather > unfair. > It seems the most popular fonts on WebINK are not new designs, but > familiar names: Yes exactly. And the less popular and non-familiar faces look like they will forever stay less popular and non-familiar ;)
