This is simple. Tell me, if you please, which you'd like to read, given no ither choice... "forever", the font on the right, or the font on the left.
If you don't know how to see this at "100%" please, ask. If you think that the artifacts of conversion to a bitmap file have unevenly effected these two specimens, please don't. Both specimens were made from the same outline font, both specimens are hinted for and displayed with CT, and are shown at the same size and as much as possible, in the same composition. In addition, the same effective difference in typographic quality can be shown for any extant CT font published so far.
Then the question of course, is: how could any trustworthy readability research be based on a font like the one on the right? Unfortunately, this is no longer my problem, or Kevin's problem, or the researchers problem as much as it had become, quite quickly and massively, a users problem, as evidenced by the fact that I can barely hear you all over the din.