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&#x27;s an introduction that&#x27;s 50% of the length of the article! I don&#x27;t mind long articles, but ill-proportioned intros seem like a bad idea.<p>Incidentally, that position statement is ridiculously vague and anodyne:<p><i>Principles of the New Web Typography<p>1. We must prioritise the text over the font, or semantics over style.<p>2. We ought to use and&#x2F;or make tools that reveal the consequences of typographic decisions.<p>3. We should acknowledge that web typography is only as strong as its weakest point.</i><p>Who&#x27;s going to disagree with these? As best I can tell, these translate to:<p>1. Don&#x27;t be afraid to show sub-optimal typography until your nicer font loads. Physical books never had to worry about load times.<p>2. Write better tools and share them. For now use Tachyons or Basscss, as a modern equivalent of a <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Type_case" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Type_case</a>.<p>3. Try to keep your CSS selectors about the same length[1]. Read and internalize <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;csswizardry.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;10&#x2F;the-specificity-graph" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;csswizardry.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;10&#x2F;the-specificity-graph</a>.<p>Like parent, I say all this with love. If it got me to read it all (albeit over the course of a day), it&#x27;s doing something right.<p>[1] I&#x27;m not sure about this, since <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;cssguidelin.es&#x2F;#specificity" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;cssguidelin.es&#x2F;#specificity</a> seems to suggest that specificity is the number of tags in your html that are selected by a selector. But that doesn&#x27;t seem to be quite what OP means, unless I misunderstand. And it seems fuzzy to ask people to prefer flatter curves in a <i>logarithmic</i> graph.