The author keeps referring to the font as ugly, but I really enjoy it. The variety of signage I've seen it on (national parks, placards, industrial applications and schematics) evoke a sense of awe in me.
I sometimes feel who are deep in a subject sometimes are too entrenched in their world with rules and guidelines, that to me don't seem all that important to judge quality in the real world; or at least how I perceive things.
Another example also comes from the world of typography: text figures (non-lining numerals). To me they're ugly and difficult to read. Typographers like them because they fit better into the appearance of text, and that's true, but of low importance to me. Numbers are not words, and I feel they don't have to look the same. I like them to look different. I want them to be easy to read, which text figures aren't. (I actually went to the effort of creating custom CSS using Firefox's Stylus add-on to force lining numerals on all websites I visit.)
“Beauty”, as they say, “is in the eye of the beholder”. It is not a value judgement to call something ugly, but a subjective opinion. And the author does mention they came to appreciate it:
> My first thought was: What a mess. Is this how “grotesque” fonts got their name?
> Then, the second thought: I kind of like it.
I get the "ick" when I see terrible typography. I can barely stand to look at American highway signs, it's almost physically painful how horrific they are to me:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MUTCD_Sign_Assembly_...