Maybe "real-world" was not a real good term... :-)
I meant optimal with respect to the reader, as opposed to what the artistic sensibilities of the designer might prefer. You know, like 7 point [digital] Bodoni.

hhp

Also:
Technology changes, and so does capability. Back when you couldn't specify 10.3 point text for example, it was of course acceptable not to use it! :-) But now that you can, there's the potential for better results.

hhp

Ah, "the potential for better results." There was the potential for better results with photofilm as well. Where you could stretch and crunch and whatever. Use negative leading, negative kerning, variation of point size, etc, all kinds of cool stuff. That turned out well for the "reader."

I'm not, as you know, questioning what you have to say. But I think that much of the "better" of twentieth-century typesetting (with metal, photofilm, digital) would have been concerned with the needs of the reader. Limitations of technology and all. Digital is no magic pancea if the designer typesetter/designer doesn't share these concerns.