I disagree. I think it's a nicely succinct collection of relevant guidelines that, if used by a beginner, would yield a more aesthetic result than if they just

I disagree. I think it's a nicely succinct collection of relevant guidelines that, if used by a beginner, would yield a more aesthetic result than if they just winged it. I'd rather someone read Bringhurst (there's a cool version of the book applied to the web here: http://webtypography.net http://webtypography.net), but unless a person is serious about getting into design I doubt they'd spend the time. I'll concede it's not the best - but most of it is decent advice. The only real exception I take is with his suggested practice of underlining text for emphasis; obviously that's a no-no, especially on the web. Also, I think we can reduce the author's assertion that one should use Fibonacci numbers as a model for type size down to something more basic and useful: choosing to use a mathematical sequence to inform structural design decisions can assist one in creating work that has stronger internal relationships. If there's a rhythm and harmony to type size that is congruent with the spacing of the underlying grid, I think the work will tend to feel tighter and more elegant than if there's no underlying intelligence informing those decisions. Not to say that one can't shoot from the hip and win a few, or that a little chaos isn't beautiful - but using a regular system will tend to produce more regular results, particularly if it's one (like Fibonacci numbers) that are visible in the world around us and have been informing art for hundreds of years. Common sense says that a culture's views on what is aesthetic and acceptable are largely informed by its environment and history. I don't think we necessarily need a study to tell us that the Fibonacci/golden ratio thing has a certain inherent beauty; the evidence is out there in all the art that's been produced using those numbers as a foundation.