I just want to thank you for taking the time to make all this and I applaud your attitude toward a lot of the criticism (which can often be so erroneously certa

I just want to thank you for taking the time to make all this and I applaud your attitude toward a lot of the criticism (which can often be so erroneously certain of itself here on HN). I'd just say that with type it's important to take it back to its first principles: the interplay of positive and negative space in letterforms and their context. There is a little science, or a few hard rules, in typography but it is still a subjective design discipline and driven largely by the philosophy of the designer on the other side of the screen. Many of the best designers in the world often disagree with one another about the minutiae of type (Massimo Vignelli believed Helvetica was one of the only good typefaces a designer could use, while Erik Spiekermann dislikes it intensely and David Carson finds it dull and uninspiring). On this foundation you can build a view of how different typefaces interact with one another. Do they harmonise when it comes to m-width, letterform curvature and/or thick-thin contrast, or do they instead complement one another in their differences? Both can be valid approaches and lead to good results. In the end, typography like all design is a matter of context. Who will be reading your text, what will they be reading it on (phone, desktop, piece of paper?), where will they be when they read it (sitting in a lazy chair at home on a Sunday or on a train commute to work on a busy Monday?), what fonts can they support etc. Thanks very much for your hard work :)