Font is fine but the UI examples are horrible for the content they're supposed to show. Most look completely unusable. I hope BlueMix doesn't adopt this.
IBM Type
91–100 of 130 posts
Re: IBM Type
#92Nice typeface. But I'm a bit confused. The title on Github (and here) say "IBM Type." But what is IBM Type? It's never explained. Instead the site leads off with an explanation of typography. Then it introduces a specific type. It never tells us what "IBM Type" encompasses or if it is a project, a group, a new thing, and old thing, a software package, a consulting service... etc... yes it says some revisions are comi…
This is why I am so sad to see CodePlex going away. Something about Github seems to encourage this practice of terse project descriptions. Maybe it's the fact that the code view is the default view as opposed to the wiki being the default view.
Re: IBM Type
#93Nice typeface. But I'm a bit confused. The title on Github (and here) say "IBM Type." But what is IBM Type? It's never explained. Instead the site leads off with an explanation of typography. Then it introduces a specific type. It never tells us what "IBM Type" encompasses or if it is a project, a group, a new thing, and old thing, a software package, a consulting service... etc... yes it says some revisions are comi…
This is why I am so sad to see CodePlex going away. Something about Github seems to encourage this practice of terse project descriptions. Maybe it's the fact that the code view is the default view as opposed to the wiki being the default view.
Isn't README.md the default view? If so, I'd assume you can include as much info about that project as you like in there.
Re: IBM Type
#94Never use pure black (Hex value: #000000) for text, but instead, a range of grays. This irritates me greatly. I can understand somewhat the justification against pure white (a poor attempt at compensating for monitors being set by default to insane levels of brightness), but pure black? It doesn't make sense to reduce contrast this way.
My impression is that grey text sort of looks better on Retina screens. I haven't looked attentively at such screens for more than a quarter of an hour in the past so I wouldn't know. My belief is that most "designers" (whatever that is...) don't look at their creations after letting them go out into the wilderness. I sometimes imagine making a "designer" read through a long HTML book set in 20pt #ddd-on-#fff Raleway…
Professional designers don't care about anything other than the latest Mac hardware. This has been true since the 1990s.
Re: IBM Type
#95Nice typeface. But I'm a bit confused. The title on Github (and here) say "IBM Type." But what is IBM Type? It's never explained. Instead the site leads off with an explanation of typography. Then it introduces a specific type. It never tells us what "IBM Type" encompasses or if it is a project, a group, a new thing, and old thing, a software package, a consulting service... etc... yes it says some revisions are comi…
[deleted]
Re: IBM Type
#96Never use pure black (Hex value: #000000) for text, but instead, a range of grays. This irritates me greatly. I can understand somewhat the justification against pure white (a poor attempt at compensating for monitors being set by default to insane levels of brightness), but pure black? It doesn't make sense to reduce contrast this way.
It's never an absolute, but for a similar justification to the you've given for white — it creates too much contrast, and is therefore most often (especially in print and on bright displays), uncomfortable to look at: "[Pure] black and white create the highest contrast possible".[0] HN's body text is actually pure black (as far as I can tell) and works alright because it's on an orange/grey background, but if you pla…
Pure black and white don't create too much contrast. I'd like to see some actual research if anyone claims that it does. And there is a contrast button on every monitor to turn it down.
Re: IBM Type
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
My impression is that grey text sort of looks better on Retina screens. I haven't looked attentively at such screens for more than a quarter of an hour in the past so I wouldn't know. My belief is that most "designers" (whatever that is...) don't look at their creations after letting them go out into the wilderness. I sometimes imagine making a "designer" read through a long HTML book set in 20pt #ddd-on-#fff Raleway…
Professional designers don't care about anything other than the latest Mac hardware. This has been true since the 1990s.
That's because professional designers are neither professional nor designers. How many of that folk actually have had any sorf of education at all on related topics? Graphic design is as old as civilisation and knowing how to do font-family colon Raleway and a bit more doesn't make you a designer. But somehow it gets you jobs, it seems to me.
Re: IBM Type
#98Never use pure black (Hex value: #000000) for text, but instead, a range of grays. This irritates me greatly. I can understand somewhat the justification against pure white (a poor attempt at compensating for monitors being set by default to insane levels of brightness), but pure black? It doesn't make sense to reduce contrast this way.
An art professor instructed me that black pigment paint was to be avoided as it makes the image look flat. Rather, a black-like colour is to be built in layers of darkening shades. I could see this applying to graphic layout with multiple colours, but I'm not sure if it fits for printed type.
I think you might be refering to the changes in object colors due to ambient light. A gray object outside probably has a dark blue shadow. This can apply somewhat to typography, as the color you choose for type should be related to the colors around it.
Re: IBM Type
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can have a consistent design language without creating your own font though.
Yeah, I think web sites that insist on having their own fonts are being a bit narcissistic. The user should have the fonts that are pleasing to their eyes installed and their browser should use them. Web sites insisting they know better have too many people doing design. Go ahead and cut that cost, we won't notice.
No, I highly disagree. There's nothing narcissistic about wanting to choose the fonts for your site.
Of course wanting to create your own font is another level, but there's nothing wrong about wanting to choose the font on your site.
Re: IBM Type
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whenever I put any of those fancy grayish sites side to side with a printed magazine, the ink on the paper is more black and the paper is more white than what I see on the screen. No wonder paper is easier to read. Then I open the developer tools, set color to black and background to white and the screen is as readable as the paper. It seems that they are missing some basic usability tests.
Paper is always easier to read because the white on your paper doesn't _glow_. Reflected vs. emitted light.
I'm not convinced that's still a relevant distinction. Looking at the OLED screen on an iPhone X, for example, it can be hard to visually tell the difference between screen and paper.