Well, perhaps I am just too nitpicky.
Or it is the fever... I am quite ill at the moment. Or is the point that I am trying to make really that obscure? Or all of that? Please, please, isn't there someone who understands me? Somebody?? Anybody???
So, let's take Tolkien as an example.
Thror's map, for example. It is presented as a "genuine artifact", the very map that Thorin got from his father, or perhaps Bilbo's reproduction of it for his book. And it
looks like a genuine artifact: something that a learned dwarf or hobbit would draw as a map and annotate. That the script is latin / runes is not bothering us that much - it is something we subconsciously expect. Just as we are not bothers that all these good dwarves / hobbits / elves / humans speak modern English. Unconscious suspension of disbelief at work.
But the script still is a certain kind of style. Handwritten, elaborate, with all kinds of individual flourishes. Some sort of minuscule script.
And we accept that as fitting for the setting, because we sort that kind of script under "how people wrote in the really olden times."
Now imagine this same map with all the text set in Arial. Would it still seem like something a hobbit drew?