IBM Type • Hacker News Board

Re: IBM Type

#21

Post by tumdum_ » Wed, Nov 08, 2017, 9:52 AM UTC

Great page, it only took 13s to load. With no wonder when it takes 13.8 MB. And the biggest png files are not even pngcrushed...

du -ch editorial-1.png editorial-3.png product-1.png product- 2.png product-3.png product-4.png 2,5M editorial-1.png 832K editorial-3.png 368K product-1.png 288K product-2.png 284K product-3.png 1,2M product-4.png 5,4M total

vs pngcrushed:

du -ch editorial-1.smaller.png editorial-3.smaller.png product-1.smaller.png product-2.smaller.png product-3.smaller.png product-4.smaller.png 2,0M editorial-1.smaller.png 612K editorial-3.smaller.png 188K product-1.smaller.png 192K product-2.smaller.png 184K product-3.smaller.png 876K product-4.smaller.png 4,0M total

Re: IBM Type

#22

Post by sgift » Wed, Nov 08, 2017, 9:53 AM UTC

timvdalen wrote: post #4

It took a couple of seconds for the letters to stop jumping around and changing weights for me.

I think that's because your connection took a bit to load the webfont, so the page was first rendered in one font, then rerendered, when the preferred font was loaded.

Re: IBM Type

#23

Post by GedByrne » Wed, Nov 08, 2017, 9:59 AM UTC

mkj wrote: post #2

Aaw, I guess this means IBM PDF manuals will lose their distinctive look. "IBM-Bodoni" font I guess for the title? https://www-304.ibm.com/servers/resourcelink/svc00100.nsf/pa...

I think this is all about establishing a new distinctive look.

The current one screams “1990” at anybody reading.

Now they need something that is distinctly IBM while gently whispering “2020” into the readers ear.

Re: IBM Type

#24

Post by Ice_cream_suit » Wed, Nov 08, 2017, 10:02 AM UTC

Wait for their marketing department to call this Watson Type...

Re: IBM Type

#25

Post by majewsky » Wed, Nov 08, 2017, 10:06 AM UTC

tumdum_ wrote: post #21

Great page, it only took 13s to load. With no wonder when it takes 13.8 MB. And the biggest png files are not even pngcrushed... du -ch editorial-1.png editorial-3.png product-1.png product- 2.png product-3.png product-4.png 2,5M editorial-1.png 832K editorial-3.png 368K product-1.png 288K product-2.png 284K product-3.png 1,2M product-4.png 5,4M total vs pngcrushed: du -ch editorial-1.smaller.png editorial-3.smaller.…

I just heard of pngcrush for the first time. I usually use optipng. Any insight which is better?

Re: IBM Type

#26

Post by coldtea » Wed, Nov 08, 2017, 10:20 AM UTC

tumdum_ wrote: post #21

Great page, it only took 13s to load. With no wonder when it takes 13.8 MB. And the biggest png files are not even pngcrushed... du -ch editorial-1.png editorial-3.png product-1.png product- 2.png product-3.png product-4.png 2,5M editorial-1.png 832K editorial-3.png 368K product-1.png 288K product-2.png 284K product-3.png 1,2M product-4.png 5,4M total vs pngcrushed: du -ch editorial-1.smaller.png editorial-3.smaller.…

>And the biggest png files are not even pngcrushed...

Makes sense (that they are not) if the difference is just ~20% as in here.

Re: IBM Type

#27

Post by purplezooey » Wed, Nov 08, 2017, 10:21 AM UTC

I'll give the monospaced one a try in the terminal and see how it goes.

Re: IBM Type

#28

Post by ta834939874 » Wed, Nov 08, 2017, 10:22 AM UTC

DeepYogurt wrote: post #8

jarym wrote: post #6

I must admit, it is a nice font!

I kept reading thinking it must be more than a font, but nope. Just a font. A nice font.

it's a font and a design language. These documents are very useful when trying to teach 100,000+ people how to properly use a font

Re: IBM Type

#29

Post by shakna » Wed, Nov 08, 2017, 10:32 AM UTC

majewsky wrote: post #25

tumdum_ wrote: post #21

Great page, it only took 13s to load. With no wonder when it takes 13.8 MB. And the biggest png files are not even pngcrushed... du -ch editorial-1.png editorial-3.png product-1.png product- 2.png product-3.png product-4.png 2,5M editorial-1.png 832K editorial-3.png 368K product-1.png 288K product-2.png 284K product-3.png 1,2M product-4.png 5,4M total vs pngcrushed: du -ch editorial-1.smaller.png editorial-3.smaller.…

I just heard of pngcrush for the first time. I usually use optipng. Any insight which is better?

About the same. But, I found this little benchmark: [0]

[0] http://pointlessramblings.com/posts/pngquant_vs_pngcrush_vs_...

Re: IBM Type

#30

Post by dewey » Wed, Nov 08, 2017, 10:37 AM UTC

majewsky wrote: post #25

tumdum_ wrote: post #21

Great page, it only took 13s to load. With no wonder when it takes 13.8 MB. And the biggest png files are not even pngcrushed... du -ch editorial-1.png editorial-3.png product-1.png product- 2.png product-3.png product-4.png 2,5M editorial-1.png 832K editorial-3.png 368K product-1.png 288K product-2.png 284K product-3.png 1,2M product-4.png 5,4M total vs pngcrushed: du -ch editorial-1.smaller.png editorial-3.smaller.…

I just heard of pngcrush for the first time. I usually use optipng. Any insight which is better?

There's a good comparison between multiple png optimizers here: http://optipng.sourceforge.net/pngtech/optipng.html

> pngcrush by Glenn Randers-Pehrson, available at http://pmt.sourceforge.net/pngcrush, is an open-source program that iterates over PNG filters and zlib (Deflate) parameters, compresses the image repeatedly using each parameter configuration, and chooses the configuration that yields the smallest compressed (IDAT) output. At the user's option, the program can explore few (below 10) or many (a brute-force traversal over more than 100) configurations. The method of selecting the parameters for "few" trials is particularly effective, and the use of a brute-force traversal is generally not recommended.

In addition, pngcrush offers a multitude of extra features, such as recovery of erroneous PNG files (e.g. files containing bad CRCs), and chunk-level editing of PNG meta-data.