"Good typography is something everyone sees but no one notices."

— John Warnock, co-founder of Adobe

Matthew Butterick says it better than I ever could: https://practicaltypography.com/why-does-typography-matter.h...

> Whose ré­sumé got your at­ten­tion—Vi­o­let’s (the first one) or Trixie’s (the sec­ond)? [...] I’m guess­ing you picked Trixie’s.

Actually, Violet's grabbed my attention more. The dark backgrounds, the heavyweight bullet points, the bold letters... I guess my first reaction was that Violet's contained more information because it had a higher black-to-white ratio, and that's what caused me to favor it. Trixie's seemed too white (the black lines too thin) and so more difficult to read. I'm not sure what to take away from this. If Matthew's judgement is the more common one, maybe I'm a poor judge of what people would commonly think of as good graphic/typographic design.

Then again, maybe a large reason of why I favored one over the other is because I saw them as small images instead of printed pages. Maybe as printed pages, Trixie's would've read fine, and Violet's font would be too big and loud.

> If you truly preferred Violet’s résumé to Trixie’s, you didn’t fail some typographic litmus test. The point is the same—whatever preference you had, it was based on typography, not substance. (Though after you read more of this book, come back and see if you still prefer Violet’s résumé.)

Well I'm not saying to become a typography expert, but it's important to understand how font types relate to each other and how to increase clarity based on the context. For instance, print vs slides vs web page, or a little bit of content vs some heavy content could probably be improved with different fonts. Also, even if people don't notice it, the typeface/font is part of the branding and it creates different experiences. I.e. it makes something look more friendly or serious.

It matters because of Comic Sans. :)