At first glance, I thought the "elite" and "subtle" were both the same face, and likewise with the "informal"/"playful". It's only because they were blown up to a large size that I actually started noticing a tiny difference. Maybe it's just me?
To me, the overall layout of the page is far more important. eg. margins, font-size, line-height, paragraph width, etc.
The exception to my rule, that I might spend more time on, is for big newspaper style headlines. Those I treat more like images/artwork than like text, so they get commensurately more attention devoted to them.
I did just test turning off webfonts on Medium and I still honestly can't see any huge problem with my default system typeface. This could possibly be because I have nice defaults, but at the same time, I think the good readability of Medium is far more about the overall style/layout of the page (particularly the decent large font-size), than about any particular typeface.
Example 1 - normal Medium: http://i.imgur.com/D4hYBPy.png
Example 2 - default system fonts: http://i.imgur.com/Jvnuhkm.png
Whilst I can see the difference in typeface, I can't honestly say that I'm experiencing any huge readability changes. Perhaps if I were to switch to a Sans of some sort, but that's not exactly a huge decision that needs to take a lot of time and fuss. By far and away the most important thing that makes this page readable and nice is the font size, closely followed by the line-width.
Even if you cannot readily quantify the difference between, say, Roboto and Source Sans, the difference is there and your perception of either is different. The difference might be slight, but it is sufficient to skew your "2 second" impression in the wrong (or the right) direction. For example, even though Roboto and SS are almost the same typeface, Roboto in regular weight renders much heavier than Source Sans, so if you are to use for a product that is meant to exude lightness and airness, it would work worse than if you were to use SS.
Things like overall feel and the "rhythm" of a typeface take an effort to notice, quantify and rationalize, but they are of an UTMOST perceptive importance. Ever noticed the quirky lowercase "a" in Proxima Nova? Ever noticed how that "a" just steals the show if it appears in a sizes larger than 16px? No? Just pay closer attention next time ;) The same goes for HF&J's Whitney - it looks like just another sans-serif font on the surface, but it just feels friendlier. Try and quantify that (Kotaku uses it, go check it out).
First impression is hugely important and a typeface choice plays a very big part in it. Don't make a mistake of underestimating it.
My point here isn't (ahem) "You are wrong.", but more that I think you need to get some perspective about the distinction between strongly held opinion and objective fact.
I went back and checked the Medium website with a handful of different typefaces on the body text, and whilst I could tell a large difference in readability between the default (ff-tisa-web-pro?) and my systems DejaVu Sans, I honestly couldn't tell the difference the default and Georgia (serif) (screenshots in another comment below).
Which brings me back to my point, that the typeface is highly overrated in importance on a page. The choice of font-size, Sans/Serif, line-height/width, etc. all play a far more important role when it comes to readability.
I will admit that I do come from a strong science/programming background, so sometimes the more arty, design side of things escape me!
Right now, I'm trying to learn a few things about webdesign, and I have spent some time on typography yet. However, I know a few basics now, a few things about typography history, but I have never been able to find tutorials about the "why should I use this typeface or this other one there". It's like everybody is able to speak about typography theory but not about practice and thinking.
Someone knows where I can find other articles about practice ? Thanks !
For a quick introduction check out a small section of the book: Typography in Ten Minutes http://practicaltypography.com/typography-in-ten-minutes.htm...
The book in full: http://practicaltypography.com/
The only annoyance was ignoring Butterick's plugs for his personal typefaces.
I was very happy to buy a copy of his typography for lawyers book for a friend as recompense for this resource.
Here is a Smashing Mag article that might be helpful: http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/12/14/what-font-should-...
Here's a good example. Why are headlines in all caps hard to read? Because they have no ascenders or descenders to help you read words and thus you have to read the headline letter by letter. You should never superimpose your headline on an image because that makes it hard to read.
There are some great tips in there that I imagine would help one pick a fitting typeface for most projects.
http://www.cucumbertown.com/craft/wp-content/uploads/2013/10...
Look at that 'a' and the 's' (among other assorted ugliness)... ugh!
Because what you wrote is exactly what I would've written based on common typographical sense and after sticking an iPad under my wife's nose a couple of times while she was cooking. In other words what you wrote looks made up.
Now that I have your attention I'll blow your mind: A good typeface on a bad site does nothing but polish the turd. Designers that obsess over typefaces also generally give equal care to spacing and layout that when all put together makes for a great site.
Flipboard would never have chosen Comic Sans as a font and people that pushed Helvetica Neue would never use dancing chipmunk gifs in their layout.
Psst! I never get people's hatred for comic sans..its a typeface designed for a purpose. Now its not anyones mistake that Microsoft started packaging it with the OS and the HR departments of the corporate world thought of it as cool to use to be friendly in communication:P
Take the subjectivity out of it.
I do like the idea of using A/B testing to double-check your designer's decisions, though.
