[yencabulator]

Sure, readability is a quality of a font, and older fonts can be worse at it. But it's hard to use just readability to justify yet another designer pushing yet another font as a "A versatile, modern, humanist sans-serif with a neutral aesthetic, designed for legibility in both digital and print applications" by just that.

If it were a non-fashion criteria, surely we'd be hitting a local maximum on readability.

I don't need or want my everyday use font to "affect" me, or to "make impact" -- that's the branding world, again, and not aligned with readability.

[popalchemist]

You are the consumer of fonts. The user of fonts is a designer. If you don't design, this entire debate is outside your field of concern.

[yencabulator]

This thread started with

> Ok, it is a font alright. To me, it looks exactly as all the other fonts I have on my OS already, but I guess that's just how it is if you are not in the font bubble.

So, yeah. Grandparent tried to justify this new whatever by saying lots of words, none of which really seemed to matter outside of the font bubble.

[popalchemist]

Calling a field of industry a bubble is being demeaning without justification.

Just because you are ignorant of something doesn't make it insignificant. That the significance is lost on you is YOUR problem.

[latexr]

Except differences run much deeper than that. For example, the amount of characters supported. Many fonts don’t support anything other than ASCII, some support both Latin and CJK. Ligatures, how many weights it has, there are a myriad of technical reasons to pick one font over another.

There is no perfect font, just like there is no perfect framework. You pick what suits you or makes sense for your project. Sometimes you don’t understand your requirements until you try to use something.

> I don't need or want my everyday use font to "affect" me, or to "make impact"

And being aware of the details is the best way to avoid that.