[nkrisc]

Considering the author of this font pretty much made it for their own use, the answer to your question becomes: because that's their personal preference. No one needs to justify what font they prefer.

Then they decided to be nice and share it with the world for free.

[Semiapies]

Thank goodness the idea that something is free must automatically shut down any criticism hasn't taken over. We wouldn't have anything good.

[nkrisc]

Not sure how you drew that conclusion. But asking "why <subjective aesthetic preference>?" is not going to get you anywhere. Someone made a font for their own use because they personally enjoy. They then shared it for free with anyone else who might also enjoy it. There are certain color combinations I prefer for text and background that other people probably hate. I couldn't tell you why I like them, though.

Readability can be generalized (tiny text is almost universally difficult to read) but it's also very much a personal thing in other ways. You can criticize one's preference all you want but it hardly seems productive. I get a lot of flak for preferring green apples to red apples, but no amount of convincing will change my mind.

>Which only moves the question back a step. Why, exactly, make reserved words, comments, tag attributes, etc., explicitly less readable than the rest of the painfully wispy text?

I have no insight into the author's mind, but I can only assume the answer is, "because they prefer it that way." Why else would they have taken the time to do so if it's for personal use?

[xwdv]

Agreed, no one should be above criticism, even if free.