Thomas, I know it's unfounded (well maybe) :) i was being purposely unfair and facetious, exactly as i feel you have been unfair and facetious over of the fonts your are rubbishing. Touché!
I feel you are picking on a non-issue, in a way that is out of proportion, unfair, and out of touch. Where's the harm in fonts that 'you' think are bad, being used by other people? Who rang the Font Police? and why allways only pick on one aspect of type quality to purposely rubbish one set of designers? Why that bias? I see a much bigger issue with a lack of creativity in the type world than i see a problem of technical ineptitude. As Raphaël Bastide pointed out earlier in this thread, there is more interesting type work is happening toward the fringes. I agree totally with Raphaël, and add that it's certainly not happening in the rump of the type world. The more interesting qualities being pursued in type are by designers and studios often using what you would label 'sub standard' type, and type you would probably prefer to see cleaned up or pushed out. Variety and choice will allways trump, and the danger in telling people too much what to think and what to do, is that you hinder variety and choice. 'Great' fonts will be made, 'bad' fonts will be made, and everything in between fonts will be made. That's really good, not bad! Oh, and trends and fashions will likely change here and there, what users consider 'great', 'bad' and indifferent anyway. -v On 14 Oct 2013, at 16:20, Thomas Phinney <[email protected]> wrote: > Vern, that's an unfair and unfounded accusation. > > If I was trying to promote WebINK, I'd be doing it on the WebINK blog, not my > personal blog.
