I'll have to admit that 2012 Headline, the official typeface of the 2012 London Olympics, manages to make Comic Sans look good.

However, I can imagine what they were thinking of.

They wanted to have a less obviously Greek typeface that still echoed such faces as Paestum.

> It is surprising …, that Rotis is on the list of the eight least-liked typefaces in a poll of designers.

That is not surprising at all. To me.
That means designers still care for type, at least.
:)

You can tell this was written before the actual olympics. The 2012 London font was extremely effective as branding during the games, iconic and instanty recognisable. But I guess it did split opinions right down the middle, that one :)

(You can also tell the survey was done before the current "normcore"-style reembrace of TNR et al. A lot of designers these days use the standard MS Word fonts because, not despite, their ubiquity.)

Isn’t what this question similar to the FastCompany’s asking of “what’s the most overrated design?”
For me, the truly “bad” fonts are those poorly produced with programmatic errors or lacking significant features.

Although the round O was jarring, one thing I noticed about 2015 Headline was that for a strange-looking display typeface, it was surprisingly readable. So one has to give them points for that, at least.

bad fonts don't ruin reading, the Universe and everything.
Bad typographers who use them ruin reading, the Universe and everything.

That's true, but one can discuss poor typefaces with a list of only eight examples. Showing the ways in which typefaces can be misused would require more examples; even forty-two of them would not be enough.

More focused on Content .. unique and informative, Worth reading.
http://www.filmstarlook.com/product/harley-davidson-and-the-marlboro-man...

Can one even quantify the badness of a face or font without bistro math?