Throwing out the baby with the bathwater. These people have done their 10k hours in the field while you&#x27;ve done it in a different field - and it just comes off as ignorant bullying to call them charlatans etc.<p>For example:<p>&gt; Their little flourishes such as changing the letter spacing are usually an insult to the original font designer, but that is something they feel compelled to do<p>Yes that&#x27;s what&#x27;s supposed to happen. Why? Because font technology is incredibly crude and undeveloped when it comes to letter spacing and making things _readable_. Calling it out just displays ignorance of the field, and ignorance of one&#x27;s own ignorance to boot.<p>_But_ having said that, I think you are getting at the key point - which is that there is a huge impedance mismatch between centuries of print design (e.g. point size, spacing that digital fonts can&#x27;t do) and the new constraints and capabilities of digital (e.g. variable contrast, accessibility). That is reflected in toolsets and skillsets (this thread demonstrate well that technically trained people are equally ill-equipped to recognise, let alone bridge that). This is what the whole article was about even if it did seem to go around the houses a bit.