>It seems really important to clarify what you will and won't do in your projects.
Sure, but that's not what the designer did. Their comment didn't mention one specific change that they are (or aren't) going to implement.
"Nah, everything's fine, works for me" doesn't clarify anything about the font - just about the designer.
>Setting aside the tone of the response
Aside from the main issue I have with the communication, ....
>- are you saying that people should respond to critique only with silence or agreement?
No.
What I say is that a response to constructive, grounded criticism should be reciprocal. If you're already making an effort to object to grounded criticism, make a grounded objection.
The objection the deisgner made was little more than "works for me, like it or leave it". There is zero value in that.
>Many open source projects could expand functionality in one direction or another and the fact that the team is not interested in particular directions is often valuable information.
Arugably, it is useful to know that the caretaker of the project is not giving any consideration to feedback. But that's not something I can commend.
"This font isn't going to follow all readability guidelines" doesn't actually communicate any information. You can't say what's on the roadmap for the font, other than it will be whatever the designer likes.
> For me, the question is one of the venue of the "work": Who will be forced to deal with it? In this case the answer seems clearly to be: "no one."
We are. The github page for that font is written entirely in that font.
I feel it's disengenous to say that you can't criticize a font because the only person that is "forced" to see it is the person that picks it for use, and otherwise, it's the responsibility of that person.
By that logic, all fonts are above critcism!
>If you are turning in an essay and your teacher can't read it - you are going to get a zero
The work (the font and its description, written in that font) has been presented to us for grading, and it was graded accordingly.
>I will also say that this example differs in that the complaint was not illegibility. crazygringo said "You can read it, but it simply takes more effort."
According to [1], the property of being hard to read makes text illegible.
The point at which the text becomes illegible rather than simply "taking more effort to read" is subjective, I am not going to die on that hill.
Sure, but that's not what the designer did. Their comment didn't mention one specific change that they are (or aren't) going to implement.
"Nah, everything's fine, works for me" doesn't clarify anything about the font - just about the designer.
>Setting aside the tone of the response
Aside from the main issue I have with the communication, ....
>- are you saying that people should respond to critique only with silence or agreement?
No.
What I say is that a response to constructive, grounded criticism should be reciprocal. If you're already making an effort to object to grounded criticism, make a grounded objection.
The objection the deisgner made was little more than "works for me, like it or leave it". There is zero value in that.
>Many open source projects could expand functionality in one direction or another and the fact that the team is not interested in particular directions is often valuable information.
Arugably, it is useful to know that the caretaker of the project is not giving any consideration to feedback. But that's not something I can commend.
"This font isn't going to follow all readability guidelines" doesn't actually communicate any information. You can't say what's on the roadmap for the font, other than it will be whatever the designer likes.
> For me, the question is one of the venue of the "work": Who will be forced to deal with it? In this case the answer seems clearly to be: "no one."
We are. The github page for that font is written entirely in that font.
I feel it's disengenous to say that you can't criticize a font because the only person that is "forced" to see it is the person that picks it for use, and otherwise, it's the responsibility of that person.
By that logic, all fonts are above critcism!
>If you are turning in an essay and your teacher can't read it - you are going to get a zero
The work (the font and its description, written in that font) has been presented to us for grading, and it was graded accordingly.
>I will also say that this example differs in that the complaint was not illegibility. crazygringo said "You can read it, but it simply takes more effort."
According to [1], the property of being hard to read makes text illegible.
The point at which the text becomes illegible rather than simply "taking more effort to read" is subjective, I am not going to die on that hill.
[1] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/illegible