Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IBM Type

ibm.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 130 posts

Re: IBM Type

#101

Post by acomjean »

natch wrote: post #88

Nice 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…

I was assuming "IBM type" was typefaces from IBM typewriters/printers back in the day.

Re: IBM Type

#102

Post by shurcooL »

nkristoffersen wrote: post #93
sixothree wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sort of. The default view is the root directory listing, followed by the README. If your root directory happens to contain many files, the README will be below the fold.

E.g., look at https://github.com/camlistore/go4. Unless your monitor height is 1600 px and you're using 90% browser zoom, you might not even see the README until you scroll down.

Re: IBM Type

#103

Post by whatusername »

makmanalp wrote: post #89
Bromskloss wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about something that proudly states "1970"? That would be cool!

I'd gladly go back to this era: https://www.google.com/search?q=ibm+paul+rand&source=lnms&tb... :

Did you see this earlier in the year: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/496596810/reissue-of-th...

Re: IBM Type

#104

Post by makmanalp »

whatusername wrote: post #103
makmanalp wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd gladly go back to this era: https://www.google.com/search?q=ibm+paul+rand&source=lnms&tb... :

Did you see this earlier in the year: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/496596810/reissue-of-th...

You just made my day, thank you!

Re: IBM Type

#105

Post by [deleted] »

acomjean wrote: post #101
natch wrote: post #88

Nice 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…

I was assuming "IBM type" was typefaces from IBM typewriters/printers back in the day.

[deleted]

Re: IBM Type

#106

Post by zeveb »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #45

I love the attention to detail in the document, lots of thought has clearly been given to legibility and structure. It's a great read regardless of which font you ultimately use. I do question the 75 characters per line, though - is it just me or can that be a tad too short for body text if a larger font size set the width somewhere? Also, on a funny note: the very last image of the page shows a sample of IBM Plex Mo…

> I do question the 75 characters per line, though - is it just me or can that be a tad too short for body text if a larger font size set the width somewhere?

What concerns me is that they suggest 38% of the viewport width, wasting 62% of my screen.

For almost twenty years I used a browser window at half my screen width, with a console or other application in the other half. That's no longer possible, due to the number of sites which assume that browser windows are always full screen.

I like a 72-character width; I just don't want scads of wasted space on either side of those characters.

Re: IBM Type

#107

Post by tjohns »

nradov wrote: post #96
sarreph wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Anecdotally, I find pure black + pure white rather uncomfortable to look at for any long period of time. (Pure white especially, but the combination of the two is particularly bad.)

It wasn't always that way, maybe something to do with my current eyeglass prescription, or just fatigue from staring at monitors all day? I don't know.

But regardless, one of the things I've learned about UI design is not to dismiss other people's concerns about text readability. Just because you have great eyes (for now), doesn't mean everyone else does too. :)

Re: IBM Type

#108

Post by tjohns »

kstrauser wrote: post #100
eps wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Still, not everyone is on an OLED screen. Especially on desktops.

Re: IBM Type

#109

Post by noir_lord »

zeveb wrote: post #106
ComputerGuru wrote: post #45

I love the attention to detail in the document, lots of thought has clearly been given to legibility and structure. It's a great read regardless of which font you ultimately use. I do question the 75 characters per line, though - is it just me or can that be a tad too short for body text if a larger font size set the width somewhere? Also, on a funny note: the very last image of the page shows a sample of IBM Plex Mo…

> I do question the 75 characters per line, though - is it just me or can that be a tad too short for body text if a larger font size set the width somewhere? What concerns me is that they suggest 38% of the viewport width, wasting 62% of my screen. For almost twenty years I used a browser window at half my screen width, with a console or other application in the other half. That's no longer possible, due to the numb…

I love Firefox's reader mode for that reason, it just makes all that rubbish go away and it's improved a lot over time, it works without any issues on about 95% of the long form content I read.

Which reminds me I need to figure out if I can make it the default view for some sites.

Re: IBM Type

#110

Post by ricardobeat »

I tried to replicate the formula for the type scale and it took a bit more effort than expected. This is what I got:

    var scale = (n) => n ? scale(n-1) + Math.ceil((n-2) / 4) * 2 : 12;
    [...Array(16).keys()].map(n => scale(n+2));
Looks like the ⌊floor⌋ should actually be ⌈ceil⌉ and it only works by starting from offset 2 (base value repeats 3x in the sequence). Am I mistaken, or is the formula wrong?
Post reply on HN