Why does optical kerning in advanced typesetting systems sometimes produce aesthetically inferior results compared to manual adjustments for specific typeface pairings?

💡 Explanation

Optical kerning relies on algorithmic analysis; however, it doesn't replicate the human aesthetic judgment necessary for subtle adjustments to specific character pairs. This is because automatic systems lack contextual evaluation, therefore, manual adjustments often yield superior results, rather than the consistency from algorithms.

• Why does American Sign Language (ASL) exhibit regional variation despite the visual modality?
• A software engineer must write documentation for two different audiences: novice users and expert developers. Why does the engineer adjust their writing style for each group?
• Why does a statistical language model using only character-level information struggle more to generate syntactically correct poetry with strict iambic pentameter than one trained on word-level data?
• An older user struggles to understand the meaning behind 'LOL' in an internet forum. Which mechanism underlies this communication breakdown?
• Why does machine translation struggle with deictic expressions across languages more than with other word classes?
• Why does pitch contour vary between languages using tone?