I'm not sure the fonts are the sole consideration, anyway. Let's talk about diagrams. The original article (https://doi.org/10.1145/3502222 https://doi.org/10.

I'm not sure the fonts are the sole consideration, anyway. Let's talk about diagrams. The original article (https://doi.org/10.1145/3502222 https://doi.org/10.1145/3502222) uses the click-a-thumbnail scheme for figures. I'm sure this is the decision of the journal, but it is really quite annoying, since you lose context. The actual figures are in the authors' control, however, and they are not very clear. Take Figure 2, for a start, which combines an overly small font and low-contrast colours, reducing legibility for no good reason that I can discern. The PDF is a lot easier to read, as is common with online journals. I'm not sure how many people will bother trying to read such a long document online, as it is formatted. But sometimes I think the point of such studies is simply to get cited, and this is an ideal paper from that point of view: the title states something that is likely obvious to most people, so this might get cited by quite a few people who don't bother to read the details.