I hope you guys at typekit kan release a more proper version with atleast more weights.

Instead, what we have seen is the release of many poorly drawn faces that not only have a lack consideration for the web, but seem to come from typographic trends of decades past. So when hearing “News about Typekit Classic and Contemporary Fonts” I was excited to see one or many of the fonts I listed above.

Unfortunately, the cuts and styles that are featured here are awful at best. Certainly, taste is subjective, and poorly rendered fonts can still be used well by great typographers, but if we follow the objective that these faces should be well-drawn interpretations of oft-used fonts meant for the web then it is quite easy to see their shortcomings and my disappointment.

Take the image of LTC Bodoni, for example. Bodoni is a great typeface whose thins would need to be adjusted for the web so that they don’t disappear on screens when set at standard web type sizes. Perhaps how HTF interpreted Didot for different point sizes. Not so with this rendering. Furthermore, even among the mere 3.5 words set in the font, one of them, “five,” showcases the font’s poor spacing. Although it’s a headache, awful kerning tables can actually be overcome in print design through manual kerning to adjust things like the drifting “v” and “e”, but on the web, there is no clean way to do it. I fear seeing this font anywhere where it is meant to be either a legible or an accurate interpretation of Bodoni.

I appreciate the nature of the web and its potentially limitless choice, but I cannot help but think there is a greater need for typographic taste and understanding at Typekit.

I would imagine that one reason is that many people read the blog in feed readers, which may not support Typekit.