I don't approve of using a serif italic with a low x-height as the complementary italic for a sans-serif face with a large x-height.

Right now, it seems to be just beginning to take shape. But I think you are starting with the most important points.

• Because the cost of making a new typeface is reduced, many experimental typefaces can be made, and some even exploit aspects of the tools used to design digital faces.
• Because faces are viewed on computer monitors, legibility at low resolution is considered.

These certainly are key points.

The fact that Optima doesn't turn out well even at the higher resolutions of laser printers, due to the subtleties of its flare serifs, as Hermann Zapf himself noted, may be wroth a mention. As well, one might note how fonts were imitated with different names even for hot metal typesetters and later phototypesetting, but this is now aggravated.

Except for unusual cases like Optima, of course, access to the typographical resources of the past has been broadened, and this too is an important effect.

Have you talked about how digital fonts being scalable they
make people not realize that optical scaling is important?

hhp

i have not really hrant but i might if i have time, i'm a little pushed at the moment. Thanks quadibloc so much, noted.

unfortunatly i have a restriction of 4000 words so I cannot go into great detail

I have now updated my essay and plan to finish it tomorrow morning. I still have quite a bit to write, so and critique or guidance welcome.