Seriously. To my sibling comments: show me an article about how great lisp or vim is that takes 2.5k words to get to its position statement. That's an introduct

Seriously. To my sibling comments: show me an article about how great lisp or vim is that takes 2.5k words to get to its position statement. That's an introduction that's 50% of the length of the article! I don't mind long articles, but ill-proportioned intros seem like a bad idea. Incidentally, that position statement is ridiculously vague and anodyne: Principles of the New Web Typography 1. We must prioritise the text over the font, or semantics over style. 2. We ought to use and/or make tools that reveal the consequences of typographic decisions. 3. We should acknowledge that web typography is only as strong as its weakest point. Who's going to disagree with these? As best I can tell, these translate to: 1. Don't be afraid to show sub-optimal typography until your nicer font loads. Physical books never had to worry about load times. 2. Write better tools and share them. For now use Tachyons or Basscss, as a modern equivalent of a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_case. 3. Try to keep your CSS selectors about the same length[1]. Read and internalize http://csswizardry.com/2014/10/the-specificity-graph http://csswizardry.com/2014/10/the-specificity-graph. Like parent, I say all this with love. If it got me to read it all (albeit over the course of a day), it's doing something right. [1] I'm not sure about this, since http://cssguidelin.es/#specificity http://cssguidelin.es/#specificity seems to suggest that specificity is the number of tags in your html that are selected by a selector. But that doesn't seem to be quite what OP means, unless I misunderstand. And it seems fuzzy to ask people to prefer flatter curves in a logarithmic graph.