http://www.simongarfield.com/

You really intend to bother him with a single error? Shouldn't he, after reading Mr Shaw's review or the unabridged version thereof (part 1, part 2 and corrections), be busy enough rewriting the book?

It's a big error, about a font I admire, and most of all it's online:
- A million times as many eyeballs as the book.
- Much easier to fix.

I also pointed Fast Company to this thread.

hhp

The whole article is full of errors. His text is based on generic considerations with tons of adjectives and comparisons, but rare arguments. Accuracy is sacrified in the name of entertaining text.

If Mr Garfield really knew anything about type he would be a. penniless, and b. contributing to typophile threads (these are somewhat related). He wouldn't be a hugely successful writer. ;-)

But at least the images should be correct so people can make
up their own minds. The rendering he's showing is like a
cubist interpretation of the font! It's entirely misleading.

hhp

@sii - bwahahaha true!

http://typophile.com/node/75398

Hey, guess what: they finally fixed the rendering!

Hopefully now at least a few more people reading that drivel will
realize that the Olympics font has some cool things going for it.

hhp