NYT has made huge strides with this, greatly increasing the amount of visualization and interactivity in their articles.
He finishes with this..
'In reading about the Doves Press on the internet there
is a danger of consuming the story as fiction. I could
not have undertaken this digital recreation or the task of recovering the real type without hard facts. I found these in Marianne Tidcombe's book on the Doves Press. If you have any further interest in the story, please seek it out.
―Robert Green, 6th March 2015'
Addendum: there is a picture of an "i" at http://www.typespec.co.uk/recovering-the-doves-type/. The "i" is cut with the dot at the right edge of the metal plate that holds it
> It is also available in web font formats for self hosted websites (up to 10K monthly pageviews on average).
Now I can totally understand this feeling. If your art is deployed on a large and popular website with millions of monthly pageviews, you'd like a different (higher) compensation than if it was used on a relatively small time website with less than 10K monthly views.
I'm also aware of the fact that licensing for fonts works rather differently than most other sorts of intellectual property. In IP law, fonts are not copyrighted like graphics/art/design is, but more like a computer program would be. The font file is seen as the computer program (that generates the outlines), rendering text with the font is seen as running the computer program, and therefore the creator can request a license for every "user" of their program. Which, in the case of web fonts, are the visitors of the website. This is a legal thing.
A graphics artist cannot license their designs depending on the number of viewers, a least not in the same way. This is because whoever buys the design buys a license to "publish" and "make public" the design (which can of course be negotiated depending on the expected exposure). From there it is (for the most part) out of the hands of the original creator. However the feeling I described in the first paragraph above, is (IMO) just as reasonable for a graphics artist as it would be for a font designer.
Does this make sense? At least for the case of graphic design, the way the law operates (mostly) makes sense in our current digital age.
I always find it weird how fonts are such a special case in IP law. I get that creating a font takes a lot of work, but so can large graphics design projects.
 Please note that this has nothing to do with the fact that some parts of many font file formats are Turing-complete. It's a purely legal distinction, which does not care about the computer science / theory.
 And running a computer program is protected by copyrights because it involves copying the program from storage to working memory and such. At least that's what I learned about Dutch IP law in university. It's a little bit ridiculous, but this is the reason why software licenses can exist.
A related book would be 'Type Matters!' by Jim Williams - it's actually suggested for me at the bottom of the 'Just my Type' page. It's a fantastic book on typography, layout, font detail and suggested practices for legibility. I own it and would highly recommend it, especially at the price on Amazon (it's over $60 in Australia).
The article doesn't mention if the 150 retrieved pieces together actually constitute a useable font or if there's any essential letters missing or damage from being underwater for almost a hundred years.
> That sounds simple—yet the uneven printing that letterpress-lovers cherish made tracing the type impossible. Once ink hits paper, no single letter is reproduced identically. Guessing the shape of the metal that made the marks takes time and patience. Guess wrong, and the error is imperceptible at first; but lined up in text the letter looks awkward, the typeface distracting.
However, the font itself is long out of copyright, so that you or I could create our own version of the font from printed samples by digitising the font.
This happens all the time.
The other issue is that sometimes trademarks can get involved. In that the name of the font could be trademarked and thus the font offered some small protection in that it's hard to then find a duplicate font because it has to be called something different.
The original drawings for the type, by Percy Tiffin, are more like sketches or visuals – guidelines to give the punchcutter a direction rather than precise instructions. They bear little relation to the end product, so they are not the typeface in & of themselves. (I initially tried to use these as reference & after a couple of hours realised that they were pretty useless, containing no uniform measures, proportions or elements). The final 'outlines' for the type were created in the metal itself by the punchcutter, Edward Prince. He is responsible for drawing, or rather carving the form of the type straight onto the steel punches from which the final type moulds (matrices) were cast.
The name Doves Type® is copyrighted to protect my drawings. But if someone wants to go ahead and do what I did and recreate the type from the original printed sources there's nothing to stop them, as long as they do not use my font data as a basis for their font. It took me 5 years, on-&-off, to reach the stage where I was satisfied that I had captured the overall essence of the original. Though one can never recreate the patina of a letterpress type – the appearance of each glyph varies from word to word, line to line, page to page. That's why I prefer to call my digital type a facsimile.
Is there a Firefox add-on that enables audio/video and flash only when you see the page?
<video>: set media.autoplay.enabled = false
you could have googled that instead of whining.