[pavs]

> I still think it's fairly readable. Compare it to the readability-required status of even big-name content pushers like the Chicago-Sun Times. My site is an order of magnitude easier to read, even if their body font is a bit easier in block form.

I agree. But I don't think comparing your site to a horribly formatted, but established, site is a good argument. IMO the font is not good for reading even if your site is the most accessible site in the whole world. At the end of the day I think it boils down to whether I have to squint and get distracted by the flow in order to read the content.

Also when there are more than one person complaining about the font (and others who have not complained but upvoted the complaining comments) its something to think about. They might not be necessarily right just because its a relatively popular opinion, but they might be in to something.

Such a well written post deserves a better font. IMO.

[KirinDave]

If I cared how much goodwill my site design engendered, I probably wouldn't put a trick splash title that immediately bounces 2/3 of my traffic.