[aeturnum]

It's a shame this is all you got from the response because I think what they said is actually a lot more interesting:

>Thanks for trying the font and having lots of thoughts. You're right that it doesn't follow all of the guidelines to maximize readability! There are other fonts that do that but mine does not. That's not what I'm interested in and it doesn't bother me - I find it to be perfectly readable.

I think an important part of maturing as a developer (and a human) is understanding that guidelines are always about maximizing certain qualities of something and that it's generally ok to choose not to focus on those things. Unless your customers are a captive population of some sort, generally we can all make whatever thing we want and let people who like it pick it up.

[romwell]

>I think what they said is actually a lot more interesting <...>

Your rewriting of the comment says exactly the same thing it did before. My assessment of it remains the same.

I think an important part of maturing as a developer (and a human) is realizing that it's better to say nothing at all than to write "it works for me, use something else if you don't like it" in response to criticism of work that you:

1. Publish online for public use;

2. Describe as "the best font for programming";

3. Set up a Patreon page to collect money for.

Note that the criticism was not addressed to the designer in the first place. The designer went out of their way to find and dismiss criticism with a non-informative "I guess I just don't care".

The critic explained why they strongly feel that e.g. curisve italics aren't a good feature for a programming font (moreso described as "the best" one). The designer added no context or insight into why they think differently other than "I don't care", which is, frankly, offputing.

It is also disingenuous to sum up the criticism as "does not follow all guidelines for readability". The criticism wasn't about following guidelines; it was about the font being hard to read.

Imagine a teacher telling a student their handwriting isn't legible, and the student responding with "I guess I don't care, following all the guidelines wasn't the goal in producing this work, and I myself can read this perfectly fine". We are not that far from this scenario here.

[aeturnum]

> realizing that it's better to say nothing at all than to write "it works for me, use something else if you don't like it"

It seems really important to clarify what you will and won't do in your projects. Setting aside the tone of the response - are you saying that people should respond to critique only with silence or agreement? Many open source projects could expand functionality in one direction or another and the fact that the team is not interested in particular directions is often valuable information.

>Imagine a teacher telling a student their handwriting isn't legible, and the student responding with "I guess I don't care, following all the guidelines wasn't the goal in producing this work, and I myself can read this perfectly fine".

I think this a great example to expand on because...it obviously depends! If you are turning in an essay and your teacher can't read it - you are going to get a zero. The font just needs to transmit the content and if it fails at that it's no good. But then you did not "[follow] all the guidelines" in producing the work because legibility was required.

On the other hand, unless the student is lying, then whatever they are producing text for doesn't need to be legible. They are free to make whatever text best serves their goals. Getting the feedback that it's not legible is important - but if legibility isn't a requirement then it's up to the author to decide how to use that note.

For me, the question is one of the venue of the "work": Who will be forced to deal with it? In this case the answer seems clearly to be: "no one." We are all free (or not) to use this font. It is not being used to make signage or publish books (and if it was it would be the responsibility of the authors of those works). The author has no responsibility to live up to any particular guidelines because they're doing what they please (and presenting it as such). People are allowed to think anything is "best" for anything! I might think Comic Sans is the best font for programming (though I imagine few people would agree).

I will also say that this example differs in that the complaint was not illegibility. crazygringo said "You can read it, but it simply takes more effort."

[romwell]

>It seems really important to clarify what you will and won't do in your projects.

Sure, but that's not what the designer did. Their comment didn't mention one specific change that they are (or aren't) going to implement.

"Nah, everything's fine, works for me" doesn't clarify anything about the font - just about the designer.

>Setting aside the tone of the response

Aside from the main issue I have with the communication, ....

>- are you saying that people should respond to critique only with silence or agreement?

No.

What I say is that a response to constructive, grounded criticism should be reciprocal. If you're already making an effort to object to grounded criticism, make a grounded objection.

The objection the deisgner made was little more than "works for me, like it or leave it". There is zero value in that.

>Many open source projects could expand functionality in one direction or another and the fact that the team is not interested in particular directions is often valuable information.

Arugably, it is useful to know that the caretaker of the project is not giving any consideration to feedback. But that's not something I can commend.

"This font isn't going to follow all readability guidelines" doesn't actually communicate any information. You can't say what's on the roadmap for the font, other than it will be whatever the designer likes.

> For me, the question is one of the venue of the "work": Who will be forced to deal with it? In this case the answer seems clearly to be: "no one."

We are. The github page for that font is written entirely in that font.

I feel it's disengenous to say that you can't criticize a font because the only person that is "forced" to see it is the person that picks it for use, and otherwise, it's the responsibility of that person.

By that logic, all fonts are above critcism!

>If you are turning in an essay and your teacher can't read it - you are going to get a zero

The work (the font and its description, written in that font) has been presented to us for grading, and it was graded accordingly.

>I will also say that this example differs in that the complaint was not illegibility. crazygringo said "You can read it, but it simply takes more effort."

According to [1], the property of being hard to read makes text illegible.

The point at which the text becomes illegible rather than simply "taking more effort to read" is subjective, I am not going to die on that hill.

[1] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/illegible

[J_cst]

That was over 9000!

[rubjo]

Thanks for understanding :)