8 ms·

You put effort into saying that? Because it read like an undifferentiated rant against all typography. If it was only about kerning, why did you set up a huge

You put effort into saying that? Because it read like an undifferentiated rant against all typography. If it was only about kerning, why did you set up a huge strawman about monospaced fonts implying that you would by fine in a world with only monospaced fonts, and that readability is not really a thing, and then going on to set up some analogy about relationships that is utterly unfathomable in its irrelevance. If it's just about kerning then I suppose you didn't intend any of this, but that's definitely how it comes off.

Retra 11y ago
When I was talking about monospaced fonts I was doing so only to point out that people tend to talk about abolishing them like it's all upside. My point is to suggest that one take a broader view of the subject before advocating a design position, and focusing on the kerning of the Google logo is an example of failing to do that. If I had written more, it would probably look more like a rant, and if I'd written less, it would've been bull-in-china-shop writing. Writing subtle criticism on the internet is walking a fine line.