Oh, wow, she’s absolutely clueless about typography and gets some pretty basic facts wrong. (To pick just one example, Crimson is not the new typeface. Large organizations that have a rather decentralized structure – like universities – tend to favor fonts that are easily available to everyone for their day-to-day communication. Stanford just picked a popular font with a SIL Open Font License, but they do not use that font for the wordmark. Crimson was not specifically created for Stanford, though it was, funnily enough, created by a German guy.)<p>All of this is very embarrassing and finds its ridiculous apex when the author scolds the wordmark for having a taller f than S. I would suggest taking a good look at Sabon or maybe the headline of her article (the blog uses Georgia which is a mighty fine font, not too dissimilar from what Stanford now uses for their wordmark).<p>I don’t think there is anything wrong with disliking the new wordmark, but if you lash out at it you should at least try to get your facts straight.<p>(I personally do like the wordmark, though. It’s a conservative, carful change, but that seems entirely appropriate for a university. I’m not such a huge fan of all of the applications. Sabon – in combination with all-caps – looks fine but also quite old-fashioned and cliche – and Stanford never struck me as that.)