Aah, the glorious days of the CRTronic. I miss them.
That’s what I meant, I wasn’t clear, sorry.
I would argue that the definition of ‘font’ has changed with advent of fully scaleable computerised type – so whilst it used to relate to a character set in a specific size and weight, it now relates just to weight.
Oh, hell no. Obviously, I try to maintain professional standards in my work, but I don’t expect a casual reader to notice (in fact, I’d rather they didn’t). At least now, if you spot a river, you can enjoy it from a more informed perspective.
Besides which, when have I ever tried to tell you not to do anything? Other than not to use a grave accent as an opening single quote, that one time – but you weren’t doing that anyway, because you’re not depraved.
Yeah, why dopeople do that? It’s not like typing teachers are teaching people to do that, like with extra dpCes following periods.
I <3 U
Didja faint? Or was that not depraved enough? 
Typewritten manuscripts are for editors. That means that no humans have to read them. They aren’t meant for display, have nothing to do with appearance. The only thing manuscripts have to be is legible, with large spaces around everything so that they can be “marked up,” i.e. instructions to the typesetters can be inserted as needed. (Bad editors will sometimes use the space to subvert and defile the brilliant words the authors put there.) The two spaces after the period “rule” evolved mostly because periods were sometimes hard to see when the poor unfairly impoverished writers had to make do with elderly ribbons. The extra space made sentence endings stand out. Nobody in the world cared whether they made rivers or not.
[Everything to be read with a big 
;), of course.]
Well, a casual glance at the internet shows that typing teachers aren’t having much influence one way or another. Which is one reason why I haven’t introduced my mother, a retired typing teacher, to the magic of Facebook: she already has enough trouble with her blood pressure.
I believe there are some programmes that automatically change a grave accent to an opening single quote, but I think most people do it because they’re aware there’s a difference between left and right quote marks, and that’s the closest approximation they can find on their keyboard.
Still conscious, thanks – I just thought I’d got lucky for a second, there. 
But, you see, that’s fine – it’s just playfulness. Happy fun with type. Nothing wrong there at all. My dear aforementioned mother’s Christmas treat to her class was teaching them how to type a picture of Snoopy and his doghouse on their manual typewriters (this being what passed for cutting-edge office practice tomfoolery in the 1970s).
Its when people cant see whats wrong with THIS sort of thing:::::: thats what makes the baby jeezus cry. Because you know how it is when SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET!!!
While this question has been pretty well answered, I think it’s also worth noting that computer-italized versions of fonts aren’t really italic – they’re oblique. There’s a little muddiness on this point, but italic and oblique aren’t the same thing, and there’s no way to make a computerized italic, since it requires discrete letterforms.
Computerized oblique, for the most part, is fine. Just not as pretty.
I agree, a soothing thread, some of us still look at pages and words, and readability and…
I have already linked to a French text (ORTHOTYPOGRAPHIE) which beautifully goes into the details of (French) printing and much more.
I do note that while most people are incapable of knowing why, a high quality, professional job on a page will give it an undefinable finish, somewhat like high woodcraft, that is tangible. I won’t go to the point of saying that typographs (or whatever their english name may be) have subliminal powers, but possibly, like japanese calligraphs, have a sense of composition that beautifies the text, and facilitates its meaning.
We have all searched for a simple date in a letter or invoice, parsing the internet is even worse. There may not be all simple rules, but it is a pleasure to see it discussed.
IMHO some tweaks and guidelines would be greatly appreciated. I still mostly print out my documents and “squint” at them to see if they look “balanced” (or now take my glasses off), if only in respect of my clients.
It’s an art form, like many others, where the goal is not necessarily to draw attention to the medium; rather it is to provide a polished end product.
And your average Joe can’t necessarily spot polished typography, but he will usually see that one layout is better than the other without being able to articulate why.
I like font discussions too. It was a joyous day when I learned how to quickly distinguish between Arial and Helvetica at a glance.