Saying it doesn't make it so: "readerly" is one neologism we can do without. On the other hand, "browserly" is quite apt...

I can understand why as I typographic person sees a benefit in clearer definition and transforms nouns to achieve this. Why not, after all there are languages that have several words for snow, or for rice. I understand that to be an expert one might need to create terms to communicate an issue or an idea best to the peers. After all every profession has its own language in a way as well.

Just generally I can't really understand the need to create adjectives or adverbs out of nouns. Nouns are nouns because they carry a strong message, a dual state, to be or not to be. I heard people using “statementy” or “show-stoppery” and similar terms, and I think it waters down the message and the language. A statement is a statement or it isn’t. If it failed to be a statement it is an attempted statement for example, which is a better description than statementy, which doesn't say anything.

Maybe it’s just me not being an English native, and it sounds odd to me, comparing with the “proper” variants I learned. But as language develops it may feel more “natural” to native speakers.

A literal etymological operation on lisible would yield readable; but since that isn't what the French word means, if the intent is to speak of a typeface as being comfy, cozy, warm and fuzzy for the reader, "readerly" would be an ideal word to carry that meaning, which is not truly carried by any existing word that I know of.

This does not say though that I entirely disagree with Old Nick saying that this "is one neologism we can do without". Because while it carries a particular meaning well, it's not really a useful meaning.

By that I mean that there has already been a discussion in this forum on the difference between "legible" and "readable". A legible typeface is one where the letters can be made out easily even under bad viewing conditions; a readable typeface (the appropriate goal for a text face) is one that minimizes strain and effort for extended periods of reading.

To the extent that "readerly" has a different meaning from "readable", it would seem to mean a typeface that appears to be readable; one that shouts out how well suited it is to the reader. But crystal goblets aren't supposed to stand out! So the term readerly seems like it's a word used to specify ersatz readability instead of the real thing; the meretricious appearance of readability.

Ostentatious use of oldstyle faces - most of which, fortunately, are readable in addition to readerly - and older Transitional faces (Baskerville, Bell) would be one result, not particularly disastrous in itself, because most of those are actually very good typefaces. But the potential for getting the wrong thing when you ask for the wrong thing is there.