179 comments

[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 212 ms ] thread
Anyone else find these sort of sites annoying to navigate? How am I supposed to know how much I need to scroll down? Is the site broken or do I just need to scroll more?

Overall, I'm surprised it's taken IBM this long to put out a font.

This might be the worst version of this type of page I've ever seen.
(comment deleted)
(comment deleted)
I usually think comments on HN about UX are overreacted, but wow, this website is definitely awful.
It's been around for at least a year.
Yeah wow what a horrible website...
It's almost like the UI designer took it as a personal challenge to see how horrible they could make the experience.
I read this comment thinking it was a "typical HN overreaction" but then looked at the page and oh my god you couldn't be more right
I normally don't mind things like the NYT experimental pages, but this one is just egregious. When you get to the big IBM, nothing works but the scroll wheel for me.

Things you expect to scroll the page:

* Arrow keys

* Scroll Bar

* Page Up/Down Keys

* Hold middle mouse button

* Scroll wheel (ONLY THIS WORKS)

* Mobile swipe (didn't test)

Or maybe they hired an animator as their UI designer.
I can't even use the arrow keys, page up/down, or home/end to navigate with my keyboard. I hate the amount of noise I make scrolling through websites like this.
I've never experienced a site where you can't scroll back up before. And then the navigation is a tiny strip of colour that's already closed so you have no signposting as to what the hell is going on? Kudos on the most counter intuitive website I have ever seen.

distinctly IBM indeed.

It feels like a debug system - like I'm single-stepping animations for their "pixel perfect" correctness.

There is a reason they didn't stop improving on animations after the flip book was invented.

It's an exercise into negative UX from IBM labs.
Am I the only one that finds this page clunky and awkward to navigate?
No, in fact literally the only other top level comment says the same exact thing.
Our posts were seconds apart, I didn't even see it until after I made mine
If you didn't there would be something wrong with you.
(comment deleted)
This is a great example of how not to implement a scrolling website
Here's the download page if you want to avoid the horrific-to-navigate site:

https://github.com/IBM/plex/releases/tag/v1.0.1

Any idea why they recommend TrueType over TrueType? Is that a general recommendation, or something specific to this typeface?

Edit: From BoldMonday's comment in issue 103: "TrueTypes can be - and in the case of IBM Plex are - specifically hinted for screen. OpenTypes with PostScript outlines are not able to do that."

FWIW: "Increasing resolutions and new approaches to screen rendering have reduced the requirement of extensive TrueType hinting. Apple's rendering approach on macOS ignores almost all the hints in a TrueType font, while Microsoft's ClearType ignores many hints, and according to Microsoft, works best with 'lightly hinted' fonts."[1]

Also, OTF is required for advanced typography features. Given that TrueType hinting is mostly ignored, OTF is generally a better choice.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueType#Macintosh_and_Microso...

Wow, What a shit web site, I'd hate to see what a payroll system looks like :-)
Or an iOS app to randomly select between two columns...
Great looking font, I think my scroll wheel might be exhausted from that webpage though.
From my experience dealing with IBM, I can only imagine this was the result of 5 different consulting teams, assisted by 3 different outsourced development groups, which was delayed numerous times, then Watson was added, and then a re-org caused by layoffs, which finally resulted in a website that couldn't scroll and caused the CPU of my high-end laptop to scream...
It feels like there should be a 9-digit contract with a hapless government entity that stands no chance of actually getting the font they thought they were paying for.
...and as a result a $6B payroll project will be cancelled because the integrator was depending on IBM Plex being a drop-in replacement for Comic Sans Bold.
You missed the most important part; it was initiated by a team of lawyers who were tipped off by another team who noticed the Watson design team were using a typeface on public websites which they didn't have the copyright to, and certainly didn't have the license to redistribute.

Almost 2 years later, Plex was born.

(This is a true story, by the way.)

I'd hope you were kidding, because I went through this very thing, at IBM, in the 1990s and got a corporate legal standard put in place.

Or so I thought, because I'm fairly certain everything we did in the 1990s has been thoroughly erased by ridiculous document retention policies.

Also having worked at IBM in the 1990s, I can confirm that having corporate standards in place had little to do with what any individual team/department/division actually put on the public web sites. Pretty much the only bit that was controlled and monitored was the page header.
> Plex was born.

And then they get sued by Plex, Inc and starts over.

Thanks for that, I was wondering why they went to all the trouble of designing a new typeface.

The thing I haven't figured out yet is why they made it open source rather than keeping it exclusively for their own use.

You missed the part where IBM outsourced the work out to a team in China, which outsourced part of it to a team in the Phillipines, which outsourced part of it to a team in India, which copy-pasted some open-sourced typeface made by some guy in the US.
And "optimized" to run on their cloud bluemix or softlayer
Luckily, it's just blank without JS, so I was able to move on quickly.
I concur.

I'm impressed with the number of people who think that JS on most people's webpages is a good idea. Or that any JS was necessary to announce this font. It wasn't and wasn't carried off well here (nothing for the no-JS crowd).

A far easier page to write up and one that would have looked better could have been done with nothing but HTML, CSS (demonstrating the font in real-world usage even), and perhaps some PNGs to show bitmaps of the font (useful for those who, wisely, don't load every font the page says to load).

https://github.com/IBM/plex has the free font.

Just one centered image of a coffee mug. The coffee mug has a goofy child's face only a mother could love.

In all CAPS below the picture, centered on the coffee mug it reads:

YOU ARE MY MOM

BECAUSE I AM YOUR SON

HAPPY MOTHERS DAY

It sure looks like it was designed by committee. It is one of the ugliest typefaces I have ever seen and, having studied typography, I have seen some really shitty ones. What were they thinking with the f and r? This is Times New Roman all over again.
Huh? Times New Roman is at least acceptable; it's legible and was designed by a real type designer. Plex is a complete joke.
Times New Roman was designed to squeeze as much text on a page as possible, probably to make more room for ads.

Makes me wonder why it's not more popular today.

Clarification: Times New Roman was designed for the London Times newspaper in 1929.

Silly me, I... heh, the first time I ever saw TnR was in relation to MS Word. And so I read this sentence thinking first about screen resolution, then "but why would you print ads in your documents"...

The square t also makes my eyes bleed.
introducing scroll-o-death page
I'm glad they are wasting their time on this versus being relevant.
Netflix just created a custom font for themselves. If it's good enough for Netflix it's good enough for IBM. 8-)
Being relevant? Their architectures and systems are quickly rising in popularity, their compiler is making great strides, and overall they're actively breaking into the HPC market, which they haven't been dominating in a very long time. I'd say they're extremely relevant, just perhaps not to your specific skillset.
User Experience Goal: Amphetamine-Fueled Delusions of Grandeur
Apple, Samsung, Netflix, now IBM... why does everyone need their own typeface? Is it to save on licensing fees? As a user, I don't really find these fonts very distinctive, so I don't associate them with their brands.
I think San Francisco and Roboto are distinctively Apple and Google respectively. I also think they matter more because they're system fonts on some of the biggest platforms (and maybe just because I happen to like them).

If I ever see this font again, I probably won't even know I'm looking at it.

In the case of Netflix, it is specifically to save on licensing fees. Gotham is expensive, yo.

Apple's always had their own typeface, though I don't remember them using one as heavily as San Francisco. But it feels very in-character for them.

Samsung did it, I suspect, because Apple did.

Damn you Tobias Frere-Jones, rolling around in your font wealth!
Apple's always been focussed on design, in both marketing and UI. In marketing, for a long time everything was Apple Garamond, then Myriad. In the UI, Chicago and Geneva were heavy hitters. Now we have San Francisco. A key difference with this last one is that it's used in both the UI and in marketing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typography_of_Apple_Inc.

> Apple Garamond, then Myriad

The key difference being that Garamond is a classic on its own, and Myriad is even the default font in Adobe products (at least InDesign).

Yeah, the various Garamond variants are classics (tracing their history all the way back to the 15th century!). Apple did commission a dedicated variant for themselves. Similarly, Apple used a Myriad variant, Myriad Apple. That said, my point wasn't that Apple only used Apple designed fonts (which isn't true), but that Apple has always focussed on design in general and typography in particular.
> A key difference with this last one is that it's used in both the UI and in marketing.

That's exactly what I was getting at, thanks!

Especially with company with as many tentacles as IBM, having own typeface also helps ensure consistent design language across the company, both in terms of licensing (they can use it in any media/geography/field they need) and applicability (they can have all the variants etc needed).

Of course cost is also a major aspect. Random article claims that "Until recently, it [IBM] was spending over a million dollars each year to license Neue Helvetica for the company". With that sort of money you can afford to make your own fonts too.

While I'd agree that e.g. the Netflix font was somewhat non-remarkable/forgettable, I think they did manage to capture surprising amount of IBMness into Plex. I noticed it on their docs pages before they made big fuss about it, and really remarked to myself on how neat the font was.

I agree, they managed to capture some IBMness there. But if they were doing it to enhance their branding, why did they make it open source?
Probably because they perceive that as being relevant.

Plus, if their push is to tie the font back to IBM strongly, allowing anyone to freely use the font is good press, so why not?

Licensing fees savings + brand identity + everyone else is doing it, it seems to me.
Love the font.
Hmm, this is old right? I remember seeing this months ago.
(comment deleted)
The news of Plex started coming out late last year, but I think it started appearing on e.g. IBM documentation even earlier than that.
I really thought this was going to be video streaming related. Then I opened the site and thought, "Ok, that makes much more sense."
I switched my editor default from Liberation Mono to this and it is almost the identical font. The only thing I don't like is the mono is not sans-serif so I'll stick with Liberation.
Looks a lot like DejaVu Sans Mono to me.

Also it is not easy to tell l (lowercase L) and 1 (the number 1) apart in their monospaced font.

Stop using the word Plex. Stop.
I've been using Plex Mono for my Emacs font on MacOS for about a week and it's very nice. It has replaced Hack for the time being.

The font has just the right amount of whimsy/flair for me, and the style of the italics is pretty neat.

Something I never thought I would write, but here it is:

"Those curly braces are gorgeous"

(comment deleted)
Their website works horribly in Safari.
This website is so ugly and hard-to-use I honestly thought it was a parody (I still kind of do). Font looks okay, though.
(comment deleted)
Turn on NoScript, makes the site much better :)
The website is a pain, the font is very nice though.