The section on the physiology of reading was nicely done, but largely irrelevant to the topic which is not really "Art and Tradition", but "Technology involved in making low-resolution screen typesetting aspire to the quality of metal typesetting".

It's true that "typography" may be used to mean mechanical process, but that can be misleading.
Engineers make typesetting equipment. Typographers make typography, which is generally understood to be the laying out of type, i.e. designing a document by deciding on type style, size, colour, and position.

To address the issue of art and tradition: there was once an art (in the broad sense) involved in making font technology, but the craftsman paradigm ceased with the evolution of the engineer/type designer arrangement of responsibilities.

However, I do wonder about the extent to which the old type founder's divvied up their tasks. Baskerville, for instance, although he had worked as a writing master, used the services of a punch-cutter named John Handy to make his fonts. At the least, Handy may be said to have exhibited the traditional artistry of the deft craftsman. More recently (1950s), the punchcutter August Rosenberger was responsible for finishing Hermann Zapf's Palatino.

And today, despite the proliferation of "one-man" foundries, there are also a great many foundries where making fonts is split up between designers and production workers.

So would it be true to say that the tradition of type manufacture is that some "designers" have always "cut" their own type, while in other instances the task was/is divided?

Engineers have assumed some of the traditional responsibilities of the typographer, by designing automated processes for justification: Ottmar Mergenthaler (Linotype) and Tolbert Lanston (Monotype).

More recently, software for auto-kerning has been implemented in Fontographer, FontLab, InDesign, and by iKern.