I suppose another related inquiry is, are there effective examples of these “load-bearing” semi-serifs being used in high resolution media where a more classical sans would have had equal clarity and similar connotation?

Load-bearing:

The special issue of Wired that came out in the mid-nineties, very texty — lots of spreads with just a few sentences of really huge body copy — set entirely in TheMix.

Also, annual reports of that era set in FF Letter Gothic Text, which is the proportionally-spaced version of what is primarily a monospace design.

By those dates are you suggesting that it is an artifact of mid-90’s design, or a quick trend come and gone?

Because screen resolution is still dismal, I am assuming the “edge” of design is still on paper.

By those dates are you suggesting that it is an artifact of mid-90’s design, or a quick trend come and gone?

Can’t say.
Those are uses that quickly came to mind, probably because one tends to remember something from when it first registers as a phenomenon. I doubt whether such things would strike me as being so noteworthy now.

In the case of a typeface like ’Meta’ I wouldn’t call this ’some serifs’ — the diversification of uc i en lowercase l in sans serifs has a long tradition: Johnston’s London Underground comes to mind…

The earliest case I know of somebody explicitly mixing up
serifs for reasons of functionality is Otl Aicher in Rotis.

Things like a curl in the “el” don’t qualify, I don’t think.

hhp

Koch Antiqua is an example of a serif face with a few “missing” serifs, and other early 20th century faces, eg Parsons, have semi-serifs.

Unlike i or l, the serif in G seems much more accepted in a sans serif font. Similarly, the tail of the t is also very common. Does anyone know about the history of why these adoptions to a pure sans serif font have become more accepted?

Because screen resolution is still dismal, I am assuming the “edge” of design is still on paper.

Ab edge exists on the web, but there seems to be a gap between the kind of designers who create and/or appreciate great edgy digital design and designers who focus on print. In my case I ignore it because I just do not have the time to sift through bas Web 2.0 sites and Flashturbation to find the good stuff.

Personally I feel that the serifs on some characters are just important parts of the character of the letter, particularly I. While they may have originally appeared to clean up rough stroke ends or simply as ornament, I feel like they have become an integral part of some letters over time and that we are often better off when some of those critical serifs, tails, and loops are left in.

In fact seeing letters are skeletons that may or may not
have serifs tacked on is very artificial and short-sighted.

hhp

I would say that letters themselves are artificial, so the negative connotation you imply is needless. I would have to say, from my limited experience, that the skeleton approach is just one of many methods, and has some validity.