The phrase “type designed for its own sake” was intended to contrast with type designed at low resolution; we of course understand that type is designed for specific purposes in mind, and the article addresses that. Our point was that there are two different, yet appropriate, approaches in designing type, depending on their intended use: design against the pixel grid, which is suitable for fonts displayed at small sizes and at low resolution, or allow the shape of the letters to emerge without respect for the pixel grid, which can create more beautiful forms at larger sizes.

The phrase “type for its own sake” shows just how ignorant your team are about the reasons behind type design. Few typefaces exist for their own sake – they are useful tools and each is drawn to solve specific design och technical problems. I have heard from my typedesigner friend that you offer a very low royalty, and this ignorance, perhaps well-intentioned, helps me to understand why this could happen.

Maybe this helps there is at least a “windows-compat.” classification available here:
http://www.sleepoversf.com/the-great-typekit-table/

Perhaps adding a classification to each font with regards to if it renders well at small sizes (say 12px) so that when I’m looking for a font to use for the body of the site, I can limit results to fonts that render well at small sizes, rather than ones that seem to pixelate. I guess this would almost be a ‘Web Safe’ font list, but only applicable to smaller sizes?

Do you know Paul Shaw, epigraphy/calligraphy/typography expert in NYC? Here’s his blog, in case you’re interested:

http://paulshawletterdesign.blogspot.com/

Bye for now, Star
http://mymilanitaly.blogspot.com
http://arsacupicturaestellae.blogspot.com