Read the second through ninth books on this list: http://dunwichtype.com/typelibrary/index.php?/typedesign/technique

This cannot be answered in a short forum thread. There are some many variables. You may be able to find a purely technical checklist, but then again this list may not be applicable to all cases. Sometimes even discarding the technical standards may be the best and only reasonable choice. You have to consider the medium and the task at hand: a typeface suitable for H Melville's Moby Dick won't necessarily be a "good" choice for a newspaper headline or a website. And, you cannot forget that the stylistic trends change all the time. So, what makes a "good" or "bad" typeface? The answer is: "it depends".

What makes a bad typeface?
What makes a good typeface?

That is not a very productive question.
It will lead into semantics, which is not really what you should be learning about typefaces.
I suggest you qualify it with respect to a design piece you have produced, discussing why you chose the typeface you went with, as opposed to others, and what perceived qualities you exploited in it, and its strengths and weaknesses you discovered in experimenting with it. And/or do the same with the work of another designer—either a peer, or a practising professional.

Design is practical and experimental, not academic and theoretical.
Nonetheless, in an academic context, practical work may be analyzed to reveal important principles.

A story:

Many years ago, in a galaxy far away called New York City, I took a course in sound recording through the New School.
We met at a small recording studio in the Village that did a lot of jazz recording.

The engineer there said this: "There's no such thing as a 'bad' microphone. Just a microphone that you haven't found a good use for yet. Each has it's strengths and weaknesses and it's just a question of what sound quality you want."

With that, he turned and opened up a big cabinet filled with microphones - some of them dating back a lot of years. He never threw out a working microphone.

Same with fonts, IMHO.

Richard Fink
Blog: Readable Web
Type Director: Kernest

Bad in what way?

I recently used a (free) typeface which had received quite a few favorable comments here on Typophile,. It worked well aesthetically for the intended purpose, but, being curious and able to do so I took a look at in FontLab, where I found that the way it had been drawn was simply appalling. Nodes on top of nodes, radii that resemble rough-cut circular saw blades and worse.

That's one way of being bad.

For me, that's the only real way a typeface can be bad, aside from one for which the designer makes ridiculous, unreasonable and unsupportable "scientific" claims of superior performance in some way similar to Tiresias, that dyslexia font, or that "eco" one that saves ink. And, in the end, my objections to those fonts is moral and not aesthetic. :o)

Paraphrasing Richard, There's no such thing as a 'bad' font. Just a font that you haven't found a good use for yet...

R

If you can find it you should start here:

Types Best Remembered / Forgotten by Robert Norton

Typographic expert's quotes on their favourite and least favourite typefaces. Many come up in both lists. Souvenir being a popular hate. (but this was in 1993)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Types-Best-Remembered-Forgotten-Observations/dp/...

A bad typeface is a typeface that is used outside its appropriate context.

(And one probably could write a book about why there is a range of appropriate contexts for some typefaces, while others seem to have no appropriate context at all ;) !)

Or

A bad typeface is one that is rated bad by the consumers:
http://
Just browse back in direction from that page towards page 1.

This thread exemplifies why I love reading this forum: dude/dudette comes in, asks question and gets an edumacation.

Like most here I’d guess, there are faces that I find monkey-butt ugly and that is one way of defining bad, but obviously that’s largely an aesthetic response, ergo an opinion and someone could be found who’d disagree (q.v. discussions on the overuse of Helvetica).

A face that is poorly done technically as Russell mentions, that’s one good definition of bad in this context and one of the only ways a typeface can be objectively bad; the other main one I can think of is the most obvious perhaps - poor legibility. Obviously some designers would not agree but IMB type has one main job to do and if it doesn’t do that well what purpose does it serve?

...type has one main job to do

And what is that job? Obviously it is to communicate. But winks and scowls can communicate more than words sometimes. If you're working on a design that calls for a grungy looking font, then that grungy look is communication.

Richard:

As a sound designer, I appreciate that story in its literal as well as illustrative interpretations. Thanks.

Thankyou for the discussion, drawn some great links from here to help continue my research! :)