Well, yes and no. Technical quality and taste are not the same thing (of course) but the aesthetic qualities of an object are as much a technical aspect of that object, as is it's functionality, topography, ergonomics, etc etc. Only the most fundamentalist 'engineer mind' would disagree with that, because for the most part, how an object looks AND functions are intrinsically intertwined in whether that object gets consumed or not. Type is a highly consumable object, and it is not actually so very very technical in fact. Type is not like a spacecraft that relies on technical rigour and excellence to the nth degree and needs zero aesthetics.
Also, what level of technical inadequacy would make a font 'junk' or (in your words) "simply crap, or at least substandard" anyway? Give us some examples, and also, show us how your example fonts are such a cause for concern. I would say the problem is the other way round. There's too many boring type designers at the controls, not too many technically inept type designers at the controls :) I think way too many type designers seem to obsess over technical gymnastics and fail to make anything that excites aesthetically, or nail it aesthetically. There's a LOT of superbly made, but very dull type, totally cut off from both mainstream and offstream culture. And to make it worse, there's lots of dull type made by designers who tow the 'technical is everything' line at the expense of aesthetics, but are not that great technically anyway ;) -vernon On 13 Oct 2013, at 12:42, Thomas Phinney <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry, no. Technical quality is not determined by popular opinion of the > masses. Quality and taste are not equivalent concepts subject to the same > determinations and forces.
