IBM's Quest To Design The 'New Helvetica' (fastcodesign.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM's Quest To Design The 'New Helvetica' (fastcodesign.com)

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Thursday November 9, 2017 @06:52AM from the signature-line dept.

IBM released its new bespoke typeface IBM Plex in beta this week. The company is hoping that the new typeface would become just as iconic as Helvetica in the years to come. From a Fast Co Design story: "When I came to IBM, it was a big discussion: Why does IBM not have a bespoke typeface? Why are we still clinging on to Helvetica?" Mike Abbink, the typeface's designer and IBM's executive creative director of brand experience and design said. To uncover what the typeface should express, Abbink and his team took a deep dive into IBM's archives. They were especially interested in the company's history in the postwar years, when its design-led business strategy first took shape and the legendary practitioner Paul Rand, who defined design as a system of relationships, created its famous eight-bar logo. In Rand's logo, Abbink and his team saw a contrast between hard edges -- the engineered, rational, and mechanical -- and curves -- the softer more humanistic elements. It's a reflection of the man-and-machine relationship that runs through the company's history -- a dynamic that is reflected in the final form of IBM Plex. The Plex family includes a sans serif, serif, and monospace versions. The designers also created a rigorous style guide that's akin to a digital standards manual and includes a type scale, which plays into responsive displays; eight different weights (a nod to how the IBM logo is composed of eight horizontally stacked bars); and usage guidelines, which dive into everything from information hierarchies to color and ragging. All together, it's easy to see Plex as a gentler, friendlier, more casual Helvetica for a broad range of uses both digital and print-based.

172 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Stupid by aardvarkjoe · 2017-11-09 06:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

When I came to IBM, it was a big discussion: Why does IBM not have a bespoke typeface? Why are we still clinging on to Helvetica?
This should tell you all you need to know about whether the "creative director of brand experience and design" adds any value to the company.

--

How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
1. Re:Stupid by ScentCone · 2017-11-09 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  And yet, you were reading about IBM.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
2. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 07:07 · Score: 0
  
  Imagine the hundreds or thousands of man hours that went in to deciding about a font.
3. Re:Stupid by MBGMorden · 2017-11-09 07:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I have to agree. Too many people get wrapped up in the idea that "old is bad - change is a necessity". The world isn't that simplistic.
  Fonts and typefaces are not technology. THEY DO NOT BECOME OUTDATED. If Helvetica works, then it works. There's no need to create busy work to replace it.
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
4. Re:Stupid by DontBeAMoran · 2017-11-09 07:16 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's not about Helvetica working or not working.
  Apple has its fonts. Microsoft has its fonts. Adobe has its fonts. It's about IBM having it's own font, too.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
5. Re:Stupid by mikael · 2017-11-09 07:22 · Score: 2
  
  That's been going on since the earliest days of typography. But all those hours are split up into deciding how each individual character should appear.
  Should the Q have a straight line going across, diagonally to the right or straight down. Should a 1 have a straight line or a bit concave. Should the G be like a devils tail or just a simple right angle. Should a 0 have a dot in the middle, a diagonal line or none at all. They'll have all sorts of user surveys, and requirements that characters are the same height in places.
  
  --
  Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
6. Re:Stupid by tigersha · 2017-11-09 07:35 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  > Fonts and typefaces are not technology.
  You have no idea what you are talking about.
  > THEY DO NOT BECOME OUTDATED.
  Yes they bloody well do.
  If IBM wants to spend their money to enhance our artistic world, then that is their right and our privilege to enjoy the results. It is none of your business
  
  --
  The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
7. Re:Stupid by Hognoxious · 2017-11-09 07:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And distracting from the important stuff like what colour to paint the bikesheds.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
8. Re:Stupid by JaredOfEuropa · 2017-11-09 07:40 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Font and typography can play a big role in brand recognition, which is arguably what the creative director of brand experience is all about (and is important even for larger companies that are already well known). Printed material from Shell or Ikea is instantly recognizable... Ikea ran an ad about how the price tag is the first thing they design, and that could be taken literally: companies like that spend a lot of time on typography, and especially the way prices are presented receives a lot of attention. This is the stuff that can position your company as "budget", "premium", "good value for money", or position it in one or more target demographics.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
9. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 07:41 · Score: 0
  
  I was with you there, until the final it's; look again.
10. Re:Stupid by AmiMoJo · 2017-11-09 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  It's part of their branding, the same as having a logo out colour scheme.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
11. Re:Stupid by OrangeTide · 2017-11-09 07:45 · Score: 2
  
  Words have meaning. Ignoring their meaning out of ignorance takes us on the path to a dead language.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
12. Re:Stupid by OrangeTide · 2017-11-09 07:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You have no idea what you are talking about.
  As solid of a rebuttal as I've seen. But typefaces are centuries old technology. It's a problem that has been solved and well studies. The problems that a typeface solves are not problems that change rapidly. A 19th century typeface can be considered quite readable and elegant to our modern eyes, and why shouldn't it, the 19th century is still well in the modern era.
  
  If IBM wants to spend their money to enhance our artistic world
  An astounding point of view on the craft of technical writing. And I strongly disagree that manuals are art. The expression of facts is philosophically different than artistic expression and has a different value to society at large.
  
  It is none of your business
  This is a web forum and we've established that this is the topic of conversation. Everyone gets to weigh in and play at armchair graphics designer.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
13. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  On the plus side if such parasites have infiltrated a company letting them obsess over fonts in the corner might help limit the damage they might otherwise do if they attached themselves to something imprtant. Left to their own devices they might burrow into UX design, start implementing dynamic, hot-open-desk floorplans or go out hunting synergies.
14. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 07:56 · Score: 0
  
  Unless you're an IBM stockholder, of course.
15. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  shut up, not shutup
16. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 07:57 · Score: 0
  
  Ikea ran an ad about how the price tag is the first thing they design, and that could be taken literally
  That would explain a lot!
17. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 07:58 · Score: 0
  
  But how else could you write down the IBM song on a paper? That would be only an impossible dream without the official IBM font!
18. Re:Stupid by RightwingNutjob · 2017-11-09 08:03 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Don't believe the old lie about there not being such a thing as bad publicity. What this tells me as an engineer is that IBM places lower priority on function than on form and what this tells me as an investor is that IBM's C-suite is wasting its time on logos instead of running the company.
19. Re:Stupid by DontBeAMoran · 2017-11-09 08:04 · Score: 2
  
  That post was edited a few times before I clicked "submit", sorry.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
20. Re:Stupid by RightwingNutjob · 2017-11-09 08:05 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, except that Apple and Adobe and even Microsoft made the actual technology to display fonts on screens and solved a whole host of technical challenges associated with that. So there is technology. But IBM is late to the party on that by about 30 years. And now it's confusing aesthetics with tech. Not a good sign at all.
21. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 08:24 · Score: 0, Informative
  
  But IBM is late to the party on that by about 30 years.
  I can't tell if you're an idiot or a bad troll, but I'm leaning toward the former.
  I'm pretty sure IBM was putting text on paper and displays long before any of those other companies even existed.
22. Re:Stupid by gtall · 2017-11-09 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  Not really, we came here to through some of the rocks back at IBM that they have been filling their employees Christmas stockings with. What goes around, comes around.
23. Re:Stupid by RightwingNutjob · 2017-11-09 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  You might want to read up on what Adobe Systems and Bell Labs were doing with typesetting in the 70s and 80s.
24. Re:Stupid by dwywit · 2017-11-09 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  " A 19th century typeface can be considered quite readable and elegant to our modern eyes"
  A 19th century horse-drawn wagon can also be considered practical and elegant, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve it.
  Typefaces such as Times/Helvetica are designed to improve reader understanding/comprehension. As we discover more about how that happens, typeface design evolves to take advantage of that.
  It's also about branding. If I see Arial or Calibri, I deduce that someone has used a Microsoft product.
  
  --
  They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
25. Re:Stupid by Martin+Blank · 2017-11-09 09:32 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  But typefaces are centuries old technology. It's a problem that has been solved and well studies. The problems that a typeface solves are not problems that change rapidly. A 19th century typeface can be considered quite readable and elegant to our modern eyes, and why shouldn't it, the 19th century is still well in the modern era.
  That's not as true as you think. The readability and legibility (two distinct attributes) of a font have many factors, and they haven't been studied to the degree that one might expect. What studies have been done are often decidedly mixed or even contradictory, but there does seem to be some consensus that the medium is one of the factors. For print, serif fonts like Times New Roman offer higher readability and legibility on average, while sans serif fonts are better for computer displays. However, some fonts that work well on CRTs can be hard to read on LCDs, and vice versa. This was a major factor behind the design of Calibri, which was built for LCDs, and I think also a factor in the design of the Liberation font family that is the default for Libre Office.
  While classic fonts (Arial, Helvetica, and Times New Roman) remain the go-to for many people (and most others just settle for whatever is the default in their word processor), there's still a lot of room for experimentation and expansion. Recent work on fonts for dyslexics has produced some interesting results, and I think they sometimes make documents easier to read, though the look can become tiring. That work may eventually find its way into mainstream fonts and make text in general easier to read for a wider set of the population, and it wouldn't happen if the issues surrounding readability and legibility of typefaces were, as you say, solved.
  
  --
  You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
26. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 09:33 · Score: 0
  
  IBM was making typewriters long before then.
27. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 09:38 · Score: 0
  
  When I use a word it means exactly what I want it to mean. Nothing more nothing less.
28. Re:Stupid by Qbertino · 2017-11-09 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  This should tell you all you need to know about whether the "creative director of brand experience and design" adds any value to the company.
  I wouldn't really look to IBM to get an answer to that although IBM is and has been doing an OK job in that regard. ...
  You will get a way more clear answer to that question if you look to Apple.
  
  --
  We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
29. Re:Stupid by Dutch+Gun · 2017-11-09 10:11 · Score: 2
  
  Does anyone think IBM has a serious problem with brand recognition?
  Honestly, I think this is just representative of the insatiable need some people have to put their own mark on things. I mean, read this quote:
  
  We should really design a typeface that really reflects our belief system and make it relevant to people now. Helvetica is a child of a particular sect of modernist thinking that’s gone today.
  Wow... seriously? It gets more ridiculous:
  
  A design tool at its core, IBM Plex is an expression of that same intersection between humans and technology. IBM will make the typeface free for anyone to download and is encouraging its widespread adoption. “If shoe stores or coffee shops or small businesses are using it for their identity, awesome,” Abbink says in the video. “They’re agreeing they want to be part of a discussion around machines and how they’re going to evolve and progress our world.”
  Again... wow. Sorry friend, but you're not changing the world. You're just making another family of fonts in a virtual sea of new fonts available in this modern era.
  
  --
  Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
30. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 10:18 · Score: 0
  
  You might want to read about what IBM was doing in 1924.
31. Re:Stupid by ortholattice · 2017-11-09 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  All I care about is that unlike Helvetica, the new font distinguishes I and l. So if it does become the new Helvetica, I will no longer have to copy/paste into an editor with a different font when they can't be figured out by context.
32. Re:Stupid by RightwingNutjob · 2017-11-09 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  You might want to learn about the difference between typewriters and computer displays. They aren't the same thing now, and the difference was much more marked in the 80s when 640x480 was considered high resolution.
33. Re:Stupid by Northdot · 2017-11-09 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  Well.... It takes many years, but popular fonts eventually do look dated. Look at any movie credits or posters from the 1970s.
  Or if you've ever acquired a large set of "free fonts".. majority of them will typically look very dated.
34. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 11:47 · Score: 0
  
  If I see Arial or Calibri, I deduce that someone has used a Microsoft product.
  Whereas if I see Arial or Calibri, I... well actually I seldom see them. Which isn't to say that I literally never see them, but when I'm consuming textual information, I'm far more concerned with the content of the message over it's presentation. It would have to be a truly horrendous font to make me pause, to make me put aside my intake of the message the text contains and pay attention to it's presentation.
  I don't know what font I'm typing in right now, as a matter of fact. Until your comment, I didn't know Arial and Calibri were Microsoft-derived. That's how little a font matters to me (and to most people too I'd like to add, but I cannot. I'm not most, I'm me.). As long as it passes some arbitrary minimum threshold which I can't define but can make use of, it just isn't important enough to worry about.
  In short, as long as it's readable-enough that I don't need to notice it, who gives a fuck?
  A corporate font, because 'everyone else has them'? What a joke.
35. Re:Stupid by squiggleslash · 2017-11-09 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  But typefaces are centuries old technology. It's a problem that has been solved and well studies. The problems that a typeface solves are not problems that change rapidly. A 19th century typeface can be considered quite readable and elegant to our modern eyes, and why shouldn't it, the 19th century is still well in the modern era.
  
  Most screens aren't retina displays, which means that fonts end up distorted in a way they wouldn't in print.
  Also, FFS, suggesting that we shouldn't develop new fonts because they've known how to make them for centuries and, hey, there's probably a bunch from the 19th Century that are good enough, is like suggesting we should stop writing fiction, making movies, drawing pictures, or making sculptures for the same reason.
  Good fonts are beautiful. And frankly, there are plenty of fonts from the 20th Century that are both more beautiful and easier to read than anything I've seen from the 19th.
  One of which is Helvetica, funnily enough. Though I'm a bit of a Gil Sans fan myself.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
36. Re:Stupid by DontBeAMoran · 2017-11-09 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, 640x480? What the fuck are we going to do with that? We have 320x200 and it's more than enough!
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
37. Re:Stupid by Applehu+Akbar · 2017-11-09 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  If IBM had bikesheds, it wouldn't be IBM.
38. Re:Stupid by Trongy · 2017-11-09 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  Adobe has its fonts because is practically the creator of digital typography. The Helvetica in the headline refer's to the Adobe font that was made famous by Apple. Later Apple developed TrueType. Microsoft has its fonts because it didn't want to pay license fees to Adobe and Apple licensed TrueType for free.
  IBM had their own fonts decades ago when they produced typewriters. In 2017 IBM is mostly a services company -they don't make any products that would benefit from a custom font.
39. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 13:30 · Score: 0
  
  > We have 320x200 and it's more than enough!
  Remember the "hi-res" mode of the Apple II?
  280x192.
40. Re:Stupid by mattack2 · 2017-11-09 15:04 · Score: 1
  
  having it's own font
  SO close. You properly used its/it's, until....
41. Re: Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 15:25 · Score: 0
  
  IBM Letter Gothic?
42. Re:Stupid by Solandri · 2017-11-09 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  Those companies have their own fonts because of copyright issues. By creating their own font, they avoid having to pay the font owner license fees for tens or hundreds of millions of copies of their software that they're selling.
  
  Last time I checked, IBM doesn't sell tens of millions of copies of any software package.
43. Re:Stupid by OrangeTide · 2017-11-09 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  is like suggesting we should stop writing fiction, making movies, drawing pictures, or making sculptures for the same reason.
  
  I think you've grasped the original point. There is always room for artistic interpretation or changes in aesthetics. But the functionality of type faces is something that isn't likely to be improved a recently developed font face. I think it's fair to assume that a company that has been in the business of Business Machines for about 100 years is looking for a functional typeface for manuals, clearly visible advertisements, etc. They should probably be considering a font suitable for road signs so they can plaster big blue ads on billboards.
  PS - also nobody yet called me out on the fallacy in my original post. Classic moving the goalposts. My earlier post assumes that doing a new type face is done only if there is something meaningful to contribute. It's possible IBM has nothing meaningful to contribute to the technology of the printed word or to the artistic aspects of typography. IBM might simply want a font to have a font of their own. Probably feels left out that Ubuntu and Android have their own typefaces.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
44. Re:Stupid by Unnamed+Chickenheart · 2017-11-09 21:45 · Score: 1
  
  That's just fontastic! =-/
  
  --
  urd
45. Re:Stupid by thegarbz · 2017-11-09 23:13 · Score: 1
  
  That makes you a poor investor. Public image is one of the most critical aspects of a company. It doesn't matter how good your engineering is if the public thinks less of your company because of how they present their form. This is why companies are happy to invest in rebranding. e.g. Accenture spent $100m on rebranding themselves which among everything included lots of investment in the logo and a bespoke typeface, and for the most part this seems to have paid off with a far more wildly popular company, with most consultancies very quickly following suit. Some companies rebrand themselves every few years (Coke / Pepsi) and they do so because it works.
  On the flip side, function is nothing without form. It's why I don't use many open source perfectly functional tools. Their form just makes it difficult to deal with, and engineers (I'm guilty of it myself) have come up with some absolutely horrible tools in the name of functionality.
46. Re:Stupid by thegarbz · 2017-11-09 23:19 · Score: 1
  
  THEY DO NOT BECOME OUTDATED.
  
  Yes they do. Things like typefaces invoke an emotional response from the people exposed to them. That emotional response needs to align with your goals and brand. When it doesn't then the typeface is outdated to you and needs to change.
  Want to build a brand around old-guard old-money wallstreet? Times New Roman is the font for you.
  Want to show that you're a consultant that comes up with unique solutions? Then you better have a unique font.
  Want to show that you're proficient at gassing Jews? Fraktur and its variants would be a good choice.
  Incidentally that last godwin proves the point: There's a good reason why NO company still uses Fraktur as a typeface on official documents.
47. Re:Stupid by thegarbz · 2017-11-09 23:23 · Score: 1
  
  A 19th century typeface can be considered quite readable and elegant to our modern eyes, and why shouldn't it, the 19th century is still well in the modern era.
  When has typefaces in relation to corporate branding been at all about readability and elegance? They are nothing to do with it. It is all about what emotional response is invoked in the reader. If you're new and hip you don't want Times New Roman as your typeface due to how people perceive it. Likewise a great many people who work in tradition will preference cursive fonts. And really nothing says "I know how to build gas chambers" than using Fraktur, a type face that used to be incredibly popular in the early part of the 20th century but then for some reason fell out of favour very quickly at around 1945, though I'm not sure why...
48. Re:Stupid by thegarbz · 2017-11-09 23:27 · Score: 1
  
  Does anyone think IBM has a serious problem with brand recognition?
  Yes. Plenty of people do. Most companies that try to pit themselves as leaders of technology but have shown a stable and unchanging brand for many years have a problem with brand recognition.
  To be honest, IBM is slow. Many consultancies have rebranded heavily in the past 5 years which just shows that IBM's brand says: "We're no longer up to date with the world".
  Brand recognition is not about knowing what IBM do, it's about what a company's presentation of itself represents. It's why VISA abandoned the three stripes. It's why HP's premium laptops take a stylish twist on the HP logo, it's why an oil company replaced it's shield logo with something looking like a Sun at a time when it entered the solar business.
49. Re:Stupid by jabuzz · 2017-11-10 01:21 · Score: 1
  
  Nope 3rd January 1941 according to Wikipedia when Martin Bormann propagated Hitler's decision that Fraktur along with other similar typefaces to be Judenlettern (Jewish letters) and prohibited their further use. Though Tannenberg was in wider use than Fraktur in Nazi Germany. Everything was transitioned to Antiqua.
  Thing is at least the capitals of Times New Roman would have been perfectly recognized by a Roman citizen 2000 years ago.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
50. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-10 01:32 · Score: 0
  
  Bingo!
51. Re:Stupid by DontBeAMoran · 2017-11-10 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't have Apple II's around here.
  We had Color Computers 2, which used monochrome 256x192 on colour TVs and used artifacts to create colours.
  The worst part is, the result looked better than CGA with its default palettes.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
52. Re:Stupid by tehcyder · 2017-11-10 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  If I see Arial or Calibri, I deduce that someone has used a Microsoft product.
  Yeah, it's a good way of working out who's behind that Word or Excel or Powerpoint file you got by email.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
53. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-10 03:46 · Score: 0
  
  No, IBM is a company. It's not a font.
54. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-10 05:36 · Score: 0
  
  > Apple has its fonts. Microsoft has its fonts. Adobe has its fonts. It's about IBM
  You were on a good run until
  > having it's own font
55. Re:Stupid by synp71 · 2017-11-10 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  Bikeshedding is about the material, not about the colour. Just so long as the choice is not asbestos, you'll be fine.
56. Re:Stupid by K10W · 2017-11-10 19:36 · Score: 1
  
  That's been going on since the earliest days of typography. But all those hours are split up into deciding how each individual character should appear.
  Should the Q have a straight line going across, diagonally to the right or straight down. Should a 1 have a straight line or a bit concave. Should the G be like a devils tail or just a simple right angle. Should a 0 have a dot in the middle, a diagonal line or none at all. They'll have all sorts of user surveys, and requirements that characters are the same height in places.
  as true as that is there is even more to it as I suspect you know. I've worked with deadlines where a certain standard is demanded and many fonts just don't work well enough as there is a LOT more than folks think to them when you're typesetting books/publications properly in setting where low quality isn't tolerated. Most lay people think font creation is form over function style choices and overpriced bs when the reality is man hours behind them are more than fashion choices and are indeed functional not just aesthetics.
  
  It is hard bloody work making a font for pro use since they also agonise over things like increasing/decreasing thickness of parts of each glyph in all the weights (25Ultralight to 95Black for instance) keeping the visual thicker/thinner overall look but maximising readability still since simple fattening will oft make fonts less legible. This is done for multiple sizes at multiple viewing distances. Then they have to auto track and kern nicely with no issues, many cheap or free fonts cause typesetting artifacts or issues such as have obvious domino effects in justified text at standard settings and are pita to work with or are not legible or track/kern badly so you end up with weird spacings. Then this is done for the condensed, semi con, regular, semi extended and extended variants which are different glyph shapes not just squiched/stretched. The sans stuff needs to have max impact and legibility at wide range of sizes and not flow visually into next word, the serif stuff needs to flow words in all appropriate languages so as not to break reading flow in body copy.
  
  Language independent not just word independent is one hell of a feat alone! The serifs need to work at wide range of sizes too without affecting legibilty as before so the copy flows to the right and isn't jarring. All things everyone is affected by even if they are not conscious of why prone to misreading info or needs to be read slower than their average speed. Also for some sans stuff like univers it needs to be readable at a glance in much quicker than average and at distance because of what it was designed for (oft used in stuff from hospital signs to airport signs so needs to convey info as efficiently and quickly as possible). Lastly on top of all this plus what you listed it needs to look unique compared to other options (like the diagonal slashed T's in univers for instance). Easy to shrug it all off as "load of form over function bs" if you're ignorant thus wish had mod points to mod you up.
57. Re:Stupid by Hognoxious · 2017-11-10 20:26 · Score: 1
  
  It's IBM. They'll paint it and then decide on the material.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
58. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-11 09:03 · Score: 0
  
  "it is shieid logo"? Sorry, no idea what that means.
59. Re:Stupid by Hognoxious · 2017-11-11 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  As opposed to a logo in colour scheme?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
60. Re: Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-11 13:00 · Score: 0
  
  As someone who was doing layout before apple existed. When cut and paste used scissors and paste - well gum anyway. Apple used helvetica after it was already famous.
The only thing worse... by thegarbz · 2017-11-09 07:00 · Score: 1

Abbink and his team saw a contrast between hard edges -- the engineered, rational, and mechanical -- and curves -- the softer more humanistic elements. It's a reflection of the man-and-machine relationship that runs through the company's history -- a dynamic that is reflected in the final form of IBM Plex
The only thing worse than artists are those who critique them.
1. Re:The only thing worse... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 07:20 · Score: 0
  
  Wait... aren't you critiquing *both* artists *and* the ones who critique them?
2. Re:The only thing worse... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 07:27 · Score: 0
  
  And aren't you critiquing him?
3. Re:The only thing worse... by UnknownSoldier · 2017-11-09 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  /Oblg. World's first artist and art critic
What about Arial by xevioso · 2017-11-09 07:01 · Score: 0

I find it amusing that IBM, a company with a track record of working with Microsoft and Dos and other non-MAC OS would compare their new font to Helvetica, a font closely associated with the Mac OS. Why they wouldn't say "IBM Plex is the new Arial" is beyond me, especially since those two fonts are so similar.
1. Re:What about Arial by PopeRatzo · 2017-11-09 07:06 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Helvetica, a font closely associated with the Mac OS.
  Helvetica was created in 1957.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
2. Re:What about Arial by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 07:13 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Helvetica has been around since 1957, and its use by Apple is comparatively minor. It was only Mac OS X's system font for one year. Helvetica is hugely influential and widely well-regarded, while Arial is basically just a generic knockoff.
3. Re:What about Arial by xevioso · 2017-11-09 07:13 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, but OSX and iOS use Helvetica Neue as their system font I think, and that's closely associated with Helvetica. Not Arial, which is a font all Windows OS can read. Which is why you have had to use both Arial and Helvetica in a css font stack if you want to make sure both OS can see roughly the same font.
  I just find it odd that IBM chooses to compare their new font to one closely associated with an OS that generally has had nothing to do with them, rather than one associated with an OS that was developed in tandem with a lot of IBM's advances.
4. Re:What about Arial by rudy_wayne · 2017-11-09 07:13 · Score: 2
  
  Helvetica, a font closely associated with the Mac OS.
  Helvetica was created in 1957.
  And . . . ?
  The two statements are not contradictory or mutually exclusive.
5. Re:What about Arial by pjt33 · 2017-11-09 07:18 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I know it's /. and people don't read the summary, but
  
  Why are we still clinging on to Helvetica?
  is a big hint, which is easily confirmed: Helvetica is what IBM currently uses as its primary typeface. Comparing to anything else would therefore make less sense.
6. Re:What about Arial by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 07:19 · Score: 0
  
  Mac OS X includes Helvetica, but its system font has been the in-house San Francisco for years. So many people who can't see beyond their worldview of Windows vs. Mac for even a second.
7. Re:What about Arial by OzPeter · 2017-11-09 07:20 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Helvetica has been around since 1957, and its use by Apple is comparatively minor. It was only Mac OS X's system font for one year. Helvetica is hugely influential and widely well-regarded, while Arial is basically just a generic knockoff.
  Not only that, there has even been a documentary about Helvetica
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  
  --
  I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
8. Re:What about Arial by Carewolf · 2017-11-09 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  I find it amusing that IBM, a company with a track record of working with Microsoft and Dos and other non-MAC OS would compare their new font to Helvetica, a font closely associated with the Mac OS. Why they wouldn't say "IBM Plex is the new Arial" is beyond me, especially since those two fonts are so similar.
  I suspect the designer is an fanatical Mac user. After downloading the font it has multiple directories. Among those mac vs pc.. Only mac users are under the delusion that macs are not PCs, and secondly... The "mac" fonts were OTF and the "pc" fonts TTF.... yeah.. those working on that are pretty deluded, and if it is designed on macs the hinting is probably also completely fucked, though with my hidpi screen I can't tell bad hinting anymore.
9. Re:What about Arial by chaotixx · 2017-11-09 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  So? GP isn't wrong. Helvetica was the default font for Mac OS for many years. I certainly associate the two. The fact that Apple didn't create Helvetica doesn't mean they're not associated.
10. Re:What about Arial by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  Your point is still moot.
  IBM has likely been using Helvetica long before OS X and iOS started using them (possibly even before Apple was founded). As a matter of fact, in most of the world, Helvetica is the de-facto standard font. Apple isn't special, and neither is IBM, for using the same font. IBM is simply comparing the new solution with the old. I doubt the fact that Apple also uses the most commonly used font in the last 70 years has anything to do with it.
11. Re:What about Arial by caseih · 2017-11-09 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  Just a guess here, but IBM has probably been using Helvetica long before the Apple Macintosh was created.
12. Re:What about Arial by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 07:37 · Score: 0
  
  Something can't be associated with something which it pre-dates and actually have no relation to at all.
  If you had put it as Mac OS being closely associated with Helvetica that would be correct, but the other way around just doesn't work. It's just a lazy attempt from the Macnatics to appropriate Helvetica and it's success. MacOS owes Helvetica, not the other way around.
13. Re:What about Arial by pz · 2017-11-09 07:44 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Helvetica has a history that predates Apple's adoption by what amounts to half a century, and has a reach into our lives that is so deep we are not aware of it. That's how good it is. Your association of Helvetica with Apple's products suggests that you aren't looking around enough with a critical eye. There's a beautiful movie about Helvetica, made in 2007. Here's a link to the trailer:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  The trailer includes cool snapshots of typical uses of Helvetica from around NYC. It includes things like the signs in the subways, many company logos, tons and tons of advertising, Helvetica is everywhere. And the movie is well worth watching for typography geeks and normal people, alike.
  
  --
  
  Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
14. Re:What about Arial by AmiMoJo · 2017-11-09 07:48 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Thanks to MacOS it's become associated with crap font rendering. It wasn't until they got high resolution displays to negate the crap anti-aliasing that a print font really worked on screen.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
15. Re:What about Arial by OrangeTide · 2017-11-09 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  The statement should have read: Helvetica, a font closely associated with the Mac OS by people outside of the graphics design industry, including Apple's own fans.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
16. Re:What about Arial by PopeRatzo · 2017-11-09 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Helvetica was the default font for Mac OS for many years.
  The default font for MacOS is called "San Francisco". Apparently Mac is so closely associated with Helvetica that they decided to change the name before using it.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
17. Re:What about Arial by gtall · 2017-11-09 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  All the people that worked with those other companies and software no longer work at IBM. They have the institutional memory of a gnat.
18. Re: What about Arial by TheReaperD · 2017-11-09 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  Both MacOS and Windows have been able to use both OTF and TTF for many years. Yes, that may have been where they both became mainstream, but they're not exclusive to the OSes any more.
  
  --
  "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
19. Re:What about Arial by Carewolf · 2017-11-09 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks to MacOS it's become associated with crap font rendering. It wasn't until they got high resolution displays to negate the crap anti-aliasing that a print font really worked on screen.
  It wasn't the antialiasing that was bad, it was just mediocre, it was the lack of hinting. It makes thing look more like print... If you squint, but makes the text even when you are not squinting as clear as if you were.
20. Re: What about Arial by Carewolf · 2017-11-09 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  Both MacOS and Windows have been able to use both OTF and TTF for many years. Yes, that may have been where they both became mainstream, but they're not exclusive to the OSes any more.
  Exactly, TrueType started on macOS, while OpenType was on Windows first, but both standards were designed by both companies.
21. Re:What about Arial by Qbertino · 2017-11-09 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  Arial is a large step down. A sad and sorry Helvetica rippoff, and it shows at every corner. Designers and Typographists never use it. And when they are forced to, they feel dirty afterwards. I'm not exaggerating.
  
  --
  We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
22. Re:What about Arial by squiggleslash · 2017-11-09 12:03 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Arial is a cheap knock off of Helvetica, it was chosen specifically because if you're not that interested in fonts it looks almost identical. MS Sans was intended to be much the same thing before Arial became standard.
  Helvetica isn't associated with Apple, but Adobe, who made it one of the standard fonts shipped with PostScript. As a result all desktop publishing packages included Helvetica, and that was followed by most operating systems adopting it, or a clone, when they moved over to outline fonts in the late 1980s.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
23. Re:What about Arial by drinkypoo · 2017-11-09 16:50 · Score: 1
  
  Helvetica was the default font for Mac OS for many years. I certainly associate the two.
  Apple Garamond is of course the font which represents classic Apple... unless you count Chicago.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
24. Re:What about Arial by angel'o'sphere · 2017-11-09 18:30 · Score: 1
  
  Helvetica is a sans serif, proportional font.
  I know it since 30 years, it never needed anti aliasing.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
25. Re:What about Arial by angel'o'sphere · 2017-11-09 18:36 · Score: 1
  
  Everybody in this decades is associating 'PC' with Windows.
  If you can not deal with that you have a mental problem.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
26. Re:What about Arial by michael_wojcik · 2017-11-10 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  Arial is a cheap knock off of Helvetica, it was chosen specifically because if you're not that interested in fonts it looks almost identical.
  Not exactly. First, while Arial is a cheap knock-off of Helvetica, in the sense of being developed specifically to be a cheaper alternative, it was largely based on Monotype Grotesque, which predates Helvetica by three decades. Helvetica, despite its inflated reputation as some kind of wonder-face, is a pretty basic humanist grotesque. It was hardly groundbreaking; it was just a bit nicer than its competitors.
  And Arial wasn't designed to be mistaken for Helvetica, but to be substituted for it. The letterforms have the same metrics so that a document intended to be printed in Helvetica can be printed in Arial without changing the layout.
  The point, of course, was to avoid paying for a Helvetica license. Kind of like, oh, OpenOffice. Or OpenJDK. Or aftermarket car parts. Or any of a zillion other cheaper-substitute technologies.
"Man vs machine" by theurge14 · 2017-11-09 07:02 · Score: 1

So deep and fascinating.
Helvetica is just another "Sans" type font by FudRucker · 2017-11-09 07:03 · Score: 0

there are three basic types of fonts, Sans, Serif, and monospace, the rest is just window dressing, sans & serif is for mostly websites and documents, i prefer monospace fonts because they look better in xterminals and midnight commander

--
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
1. Re:Helvetica is just another "Sans" type font by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutely. Every distinction beyond those 3 is just pretentious fluff. That's why I do *everything* in Comic Sans. /s
2. Re:Helvetica is just another "Sans" type font by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 07:12 · Score: 0
  
  Wow that's a nice sarcasm tag, reddit scum.
3. Re:Helvetica is just another "Sans" type font by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 07:14 · Score: 0
  
  there are three basic types of computer, LSI, VLSI and VLSI in quad flat packages, the rest is just window dressing.
4. Re:Helvetica is just another "Sans" type font by barbariccow · 2017-11-09 07:35 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  there are three basic types of fonts, Sans, Serif, and monospace
  Completely wrong.
  Sans Serif and Serif just describe either the absence or presence of lines extending from the bottom of letters. Even these have sub categories, like "Slab Serif". Neither of these have anything to do with a font is monospace or not. For example, "Courier New" is one of my personal favourite fonts, and is both monospace and serif. These are just 2 possible attributes (since "sans serif" just means not containing serifs) of a font. Many font families have both serif and sans serif versions, and some even have monospace versions, which just means each character takes up a fixed amount of width, NOT meaning that the span of the left side to the right side of each glyph is a fixed length, whitespace counts. So you can make ANY font monospace just by whitespace padding all representations of glyphs to match the largest in the set.
  Thus, being toggelable attributes, the true difference between any font is absolutely everything else.
5. Re:Helvetica is just another "Sans" type font by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 07:37 · Score: 0
  
  Absolutely. Every distinction beyond those 3 is just pretentious fluff. That's why I do *everything* in Comic Sans. /s
  Comic Papyrus is MUCH better.
6. Re: Helvetica is just another "Sans" type font by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 08:10 · Score: 0
  
  You know how to spell polysyllabic words like "sarcasm". Well done. In no time at all you'll be a worthwhile, functioning member of society. Any day now.
  Until then, hush while the grown-ups talk, ok?
7. Re:Helvetica is just another "Sans" type font by UnknownSoldier · 2017-11-09 08:36 · Score: 2
  
  > there are three basic types of fonts, Sans, Serif, and monospace,
  Incorrect.
  There are at least 2 properties of typefaces.
  * Serif along with the opposite Sans Serif, and
  * Proportional along with the opposite Non-proportional aka monospaced
  You are conflating proportionality with serifs. Traditionally, monospaced typefaces are Sans Serif, but that is NOT a hard rule.
  For example, you can have:
  * monospaced Serif typefaces -- e.g. Courier New (which look like crap on electronic displays, but look good in print)
  and
  * monospaced Sans serif typefaces. -- e.g. Inconsolata, Source Code Pro (which look great on electronic displays, but look OK in print.)
  The easiest way to tell if a font is serif or not is to look at the "S" or "s".
8. Re:Helvetica is just another "Sans" type font by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 10:26 · Score: 0
  
  whoosh ...
9. Re: Helvetica is just another "Sans" type font by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 12:43 · Score: 0
  
  Thanks. Gonna try Comic Papyrus for an obit.
10. Re: Helvetica is just another "Sans" type font by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 12:51 · Score: 0
  
  Inconsolata looks great.
11. Re: Helvetica is just another "Sans" type font by UnknownSoldier · 2017-11-10 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  It does, Inconsolata-g is better -- it fixes the "one" and lower case "L" glyph from looking to similar.
  You can find it and other good recommendations here:
  https://www.slant.co/topics/67...
  * Andale Mono
  * Anonymous Pro
  * Consolas
  * Deja Vu Sans Mon
  * Droid Sans Mono
  * Envy Code R
  * Fira Code
  * Hack
  * Inconsolata-g
  * Input
  * Liberation Mono
  * Lucida Console
  * M+ 1m
  * Menlo
  * Meslo LG
  * Monaco
  * PT Mono
  * Proggy Clean
  * Source Code Pro
  * Ubuntu Mono
Wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 07:09 · Score: 0

There are FOUR basic fonts, sans, serif, mono and comic sans. (The later is for websites).
1. Re:Wrong by tehcyder · 2017-11-10 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  There are FOUR basic fonts, sans, serif, mono and comic sans. (The later is for websites).
  Right, there are four basic fonts, sans, serif, mono, comic sans and OMG Ponies...FIVE basic fonts. I'll start again.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
"Why are we still clinging on to Helvetica?" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 07:11 · Score: 1

Because a significant aspect of legibility is familiarity. There's a reason almost all "if you touch this you'll die" signs are typeset in Helvetica, this is also why Germany spent a significant portion of the last century clinging onto Blackletter.
Make-work for themselves by DNS-and-BIND · 2017-11-09 07:11 · Score: 1

Well, obviously the designers needed work, so they made some. Hey, why not create a font, but three fonts, and a shit-ton of paperwork to go with them. Plus standards on how they should be used, so there will be plenty of enforcement make-work in years to come.
You want to know why, a lot of times, companies change shit for no reason? So that the designers will have something to design, and far more importantly, have something on their resumes they can show off. So many products that work just fine get trashed this way, millions of users are harmed, just so a handful of designers can move on to that next great thing.

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
1. Re:Make-work for themselves by DontBeAMoran · 2017-11-09 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like how I'm stuck on Mac OS X 10.9.5 because the fonts in ulterior versions look like anorexic crap designed for kids with 30/20 vision and triple-resolution displays?
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
2. Re:Make-work for themselves by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 15:35 · Score: 0
  
  You seriously care that much about fonts? As long as I can read it and it doesn't look like comic sans I'm happy. In fact scratch that, I don't even really care if it's comic sans: it's a font, the letters are legible, move on.
Knock it off. by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2017-11-09 07:14 · Score: 1

>> Why does IBM not have a bespoke typeface? Why are we still clinging on to Helvetica?

It's a FREE and OPEN font. (Remember when IBM tried pitching open source stuff?)

And the crap IBM shovels won't smell any sweeter if it looks a little different.
1. Re:Knock it off. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  >> It's a FREE and OPEN font.
  No it isn't.
2. Re: Knock it off. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 08:40 · Score: 0
  
  Nowhere does that page even mention Helvetica
I work for IBM by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 07:18 · Score: 0

And think this is bullshit.
1. Re:I work for IBM by boudie2 · 2017-11-09 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  IBM: Our revenues have dropped from $110 billion to $80 billion over the past five years. Does anyone have any ideas?
  Abbink: How about a bespoke typeface?
Post-war, eh? by CSMoran · 2017-11-09 07:18 · Score: 1

Abbink and his team took a deep dive into IBM's archives. They were especially interested in the company's history in the postwar years,
I see what you did there.

--
Every end has half a stick.
1. Re:Post-war, eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  IBM did nothing wrong!
2. Re:Post-war, eh? by boudie2 · 2017-11-09 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  Vee vill not be talking about zee war. Ya?
IBM knows fonts by DontBeAMoran · 2017-11-09 07:18 · Score: 1

But fastcodesign.com just proved don't know jack shit about how the web works.
The image "4-ibms-quest-to-make-a-new-helvetica" should be in PNG format, not JPEG.
Idiots.

--
#DeleteFacebook
Who is IBM? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 07:20 · Score: 0

Who is IBM?
1. Re:Who is IBM? by barbariccow · 2017-11-09 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  obviously a minor in the eyes of the law, or you'd have more than the initials.
2. Re: Who is IBM? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 12:56 · Score: 0
  
  Or an allochthone criminal.
How To Know A Company has become irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 07:22 · Score: 0

.. they start worrying over not having their "own" font.
Quis custodiet? [Re:The only thing worse...] by Geoffrey.landis · 2017-11-09 07:28 · Score: 1

Wait... aren't you critiquing both artists, and the ones who critique them, and the ones who critique the ones that critique them?

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
1. Re:Quis custodiet? [Re:The only thing worse...] by Shotgun · 2017-11-10 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  And...
  it is critics all the way down.
  
  --
  Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
  Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Down with Helvetica! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 07:29 · Score: 0

Times New Roman forever!
Typefaces And Computer by coolmoose25 · 2017-11-09 07:32 · Score: 1

Typefaces were in place long before IBM, Apple, Microsoft entered the scene. I too wonder why the article refers to IBM creating a new "Helvetica", calling it IBM Plex, and including serif, sans-serif, and monotype. My main complaint is that there is essentially no such thing as a serif Helvetica, so how can there be a new IBM Plex that is serif? Same is true of monotype. And we should have no illusions about IBM Plex replacing Helvetica. Nothing is EVER going to replace Helvetica. The article summary would be much clearer if it never even used the word. (As for Mac's being associated with Helvetica, well, they paid Linotype for the name, along with Xerox and Adobe, so that the font would be included in Postscript). As for today, whether it is called Helvetica or Arial or FreeSans, it's basically the standard, basic sans serif font. Helvetica is Kleenex. Arial is facial tissue. Both will catch your snot.

--
Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
1. Re:Typefaces And Computer by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 10:06 · Score: 0
  
  Since you are logged in, and the following might rise above the noise:
  Not only was this a seemingly stupid concept, but the reporting was terrible. (Not unusual for Slashdot these days....)
  IBM over the years created many Fonts; a dozen at least are associated with just the Selectric Typewriter, like Letter Gothic and Prestige Elite. (I mention that it was a Typewriter because I doubt that many involved in this discussion knows what a Selectric was, or ever got within smelling distance of its balls.)
  Excerpts from a recent book, for Teens concerning Online Publishing:
  "There are scores of Fonts that are over 100 years old, their creators, heirs, and Assignees long dead. Yet they are Copyrighted and Trademarked by Scoundrels in the Font and Typeface Industries. Like Adobe and Microsoft. They stole the designs, and even the names, and stuck restrictive Rights on them. I feel that it is entirely fair to steal Fonts and Typefaces that were themselves stolen, but that's just me. If I choose to use some kind of Didot, and anybody objects, just show me the Release signed by Firmin Didot, with the ink authenticated. On the other hand, Fonts and Typefaces that are original and modern, like Helvetica, are owned by the Creator and their Assignees, and those rights should be respected... ...note that _all_ of the Fonts included in your and their Operating Systems and Software are proprietary, and include deep in the EULAs, if they exist, is the fact that you lot only have a _License_ to use the Fonts under restricted Rights. That's just the way it is... ...In Apple's "Font Book" as of 10.9, Embedding permissions for Fonts is no longer even listed, instead there is sometimes a referral to an EULA that does not even exist, (Microsoft Fonts...)... "
  There can be a pragmatic reason for creating a Font having nothing to do with design. It has to do with Control. Fonts are Trademarked by their Name, and Copyrighted by their visual design. It is entirely legal for IBM to restrict the use of "Plex" to only IBM documentation, and not license it out for any other use. A nice juicy Infringement case in the offing against those who are careless, like most of you, about these matters. My guess is that this was actually concocted by some skinny SCO-involved Lawyer because those Sharks are getting hungry.
  But they got lazy; because "Plex" is already Trademarked by SHINANO KENSHI KABUSHIKI KAISHA for "recording/reproduction devices", and there at least another dozen instances concerning Fonts and printing listed at Justia, to some degree.
  https://trademarks.justia.com
  is a fun place to spend some time; they list some 1402 instances of "Plex" already being Trademarked.
  (I am not a Lawyer. But I just spent several pages untangling the Law concerning Copyrights and Trademarks in EXIFs and IPTC Headers, and this is even messier than Fonts.)
I like it by bugs2squash · 2017-11-09 07:42 · Score: 1

And it looks IBM-ish to me, though I couldn't say why, maybe it looks like something that OS2 would have scrolled up in that creepy smooth way that it did. I think they should have used the typeface from the 3270 terminal though - that is what I most associate with IBM.

--
Nullius in verba
Be Nice by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 07:47 · Score: 0

The Liberal Art majors need something to do after college...
What about Courier? by barbariccow · 2017-11-09 07:52 · Score: 5, Informative

What about Courier? IBM owned that font... It's also known as "IBM Courier." They owned the copyright to that font and released it decades ago.
1. Re:What about Courier? by antdude · 2017-11-09 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  It amazed me that my IBM ProPrinter X24e dotmatrix printed so fast with that font. Now, I know why.
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 07:56 · Score: 0

Who gives a flying fuck? IBM are a has been company...
Swiss 721 by pr0t0 · 2017-11-09 07:56 · Score: 1

Tell the IBM PHB's that you switched to Swiss 721.
(joke for the graphic designers out there).

--
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
1. Re: Swiss 721 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 12:34 · Score: 0
  
  Thanks for making me spend half an hour reading a discussion about the diff between Helvetica and Swiss 721, which seems to be only the baseline of the Spanish initial reversed ? and ! characters.
Intentionally Blurry by PraiseBob · 2017-11-09 07:57 · Score: 1

Soft lines on the outside edge, so I guess they intend it to always show up blurry. No thanks.
Bespoke? by sqorbit · 2017-11-09 08:26 · Score: 1

Ok, I'll bite..I'm stupid Someone explain to me what "bespoke typeface" means.

--
Sent from my TARDIS
1. Re:Bespoke? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  You know the spokes on a wheel? Well this isn't like that.
  You know how you spoke yesterday? This isn't like that either.
2. Re:Bespoke? by Myrdos · 2017-11-09 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Bespoke means custom, and typeface means font. "Custom font".
3. Re:Bespoke? by circusboy · 2017-11-09 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  bespoke just means "custom tailored"
  if you consider the etymology, you can think of bespoke as meaning "this is what you said you wanted..." or "you asked for it..."
  
  --
  -- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
4. Re:Bespoke? by Obfuscant · 2017-11-09 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  bespoke just means "custom tailored"
  It is interesting to go to the Miriam Webster site to see the definition. They include a comment about a "new meaning" that the word picked up in the 16th century, of "sold before it was made".
  As in "vaporware".
5. Re:Bespoke? by tehcyder · 2017-11-10 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, I'll bite..I'm stupid Someone explain to me what "bespoke typeface" means.
  Does your internets not have the Google?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Aah, well said! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 08:26 · Score: 0

It is none of your business
This is a web forum and we've established that this is the topic of conversation. Everyone gets to weigh in and play at armchair graphics designer.
I don't have mod points now, but I would love to see rewarded a good answer to an attitude which creeps up too often on Slashdot recently:
I get it by NikeHerc · 2017-11-09 08:39 · Score: 1

Ok, now I get why IBM has been going straight downhill. They weren't spending nearly enough time on a new font.

--
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
Honest questions... by morethanapapercert · 2017-11-09 09:13 · Score: 1

So far the posts to this story have been uniformly disparaging, derisive and even mocking. I happen to agree with the consensus that IBM generally, and the creative team described in TFA specifically, are waaaay over thinking things.
That said, let's note that, for a corporation as large as IBM, the costs of having such a design team develop is pretty minor. Even so, there has to be some form of performance metric the managers and higher ups use to measure the value to the company the design team and their output provide. Which leads me to my questions:
If you're a high level design exec, how do you determine that a change is needed? Once you've come up with a new logo, typeface, letterheads and so on, how do you measure its effectiveness at expressing the companies philosophy/business strategy? I've often felt that there is too much effort being put into such things. You get a creative type to create a logo, choose a typeface that suits your needs and move on. Yet these creative folk (most of whom are pretty smart within their field) see effects on the viewer, see meaning in little details that frankly eludes me. It's like in the art world, where artists and intellectuals see nuances and levels of meaning in a work that the vast majority of people just don't notice or understand. At it's most extreme, that leads to things like modern art, performance art and so on. If a big corporation chooses a new look, given that subtleties are going to be lost on the majority of viewers, how can they be sure it's not only working, but working well enough to justify the man hours that went into crafting it?
I'd love to hear from the artists, industrial designers and so on about this.

--
I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
1. Re:Honest questions... by Obfuscant · 2017-11-09 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  That said, let's note that, for a corporation as large as IBM, the costs of having such a design team develop is pretty minor.
  
  The costs of replacing every print or display use of a font for IBM products or services will be astronomical, as will the enforcement of the standards for its use.
  It's like when a company or school develops a new logo. It isn't just the $50,000 paid to the graphic designer to produce the logo, it's the thousands upon thousands of dollars spent on things like replacing everyone's business cards, advertising, letterhead, etc, with the new logo, and throwing out all of the stuff with the old. A local bank changed its logo a few years ago. They were donating cases of pencils with the old logo to charity.
  There's also the cost of all the media designers who need to integrate the new logo into their web pages. Our uni logo change was mandated to appear on every web page served by every web server in the uni, and many of those needed some redesign to go from what was basically a circle shaped logo to a thin rectangular one. You can't just replace the logo png file and have the page look right. And then you get to do it again in five years when the logo changes again.
  
  If you're a high level design exec, how do you determine that a change is needed?
  
  Ask yourself this: "have I made any impact on the company at all in the 20 years I've worked here?" And "what will the people I leave behind when I retire remember me for?" If the answer is "not a hell of a lot", then "a new corporate logo" is low hanging fruit.
  
  I'd love to hear from the artists, industrial designers and so on about this.
  A company should be more interested in hearing from potential customers. "Did the existence of 8 versions of this font remind you of the IBM logo, and more important, did it remind you of IBM when you were making your last buying decision?"
2. Re:Honest questions... by bhetrick · 2017-11-09 14:23 · Score: 1
  
  Almost all typographers, a good many graphics designers, and the occasional layman know that your emotional response to written material is influenced—I did not say determined—by the face used to present it. Bookman, for example, feels simplistic; Palatino feels formal; Souvenir feels intimate; Times feels remote. Compare Helvetica with Futura, for example: Helvetica feels officious in comparison. There are a great many appearance factors at work in our emotional reactions to fonts: letter width, letterspacing, x-height, lines or gentle curves, counter and bowl shapes, stroke width and variability, serif style or line-end style in sans-serifs, and overall blackness are a few. The subtleties may not be apparent—they wouldn't be subtleties if they were, would they?—but lost they are not.
3. Re:Honest questions... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 14:41 · Score: 0
  
  Well, that certainly explains the petit mals I would get back when I used to read Wired.
4. Re:Honest questions... by Shotgun · 2017-11-10 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  Turning the question around so that we can all see it in a different light:
  If you're a software engineer, how do you determine that a change is needed? Once you've re-ordered a body of code, with its objects and methods, and so on, how do you measure its effectiveness at expressing the intent and objective of the project?
  This is interesting, because every few months we get a raft of stories coming down about how a particular distribution is rearranging the furniture on a Linux distro's desktop, or rewritten a system settings program, or rewritten a component completely. How do we measure that the "new and improved" isn't just "new and now obscure".
  
  --
  Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
  Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
It's not officially a thing until Apple does it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 09:19 · Score: 1

There, I said it.
Journo-decay by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 09:28 · Score: 0

These days even two uses of "dive" should be beneath any decent journalist. Unless they're selling something.
Serif Don't Like It? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 09:34 · Score: 0

I guess what I really worry about is what does this font say about me as a person. What do people think? Are they saying, "Look at Mr. Wingdings over here trying to use Calibri. Who does he think he is?"
It isn't a Monotype font by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 09:37 · Score: 0

It's owned by another company, essentially Linotype.
It's not IBM's First Font by markhb · 2017-11-09 09:37 · Score: 1

Some 13 years ago, OS/2 came with its own custom font, Warp Sans. Granted, it was a bitmapped font and only came in (IIRC) 11pt, but I'm pretty sure it qualified as an "IBM font".

--
Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
1. Re:It's not IBM's First Font by mejustme · 2017-11-09 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  "13 years ago"? Meaning 2004? OS/2 and Warp were already long dead by then. Maybe you meant 23 years ago, when Warp 3 first came out.
  Disclaimer: I worked at IBM in the 90s, and was an OS/2 developer until IBM pulled the plug around Y2K.
Helvetica is to fonts as the Beatles are to music by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 09:40 · Score: 0

So IBM wants to be the new Beatles?
Good luck with that. by Qbertino · 2017-11-09 09:40 · Score: 1

Helvetica is one short of the embodyment of god in Fonts. The replacement for it has long since been built and is called Futura. 99% of things we read in the western world goes back to these fonts and their anchestors. I seriously doubt they can find and establish something this iconic.
But I'm curious anyway. IBM has money to burn and chances are their font doesn't suck. What I've seen so far looks ok to me, that much I can say. A replacement for Futura or Helvetica? Nope. Not even close.
But a neat font? Yeah, probably.

--
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
1. Re:Good luck with that. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 10:02 · Score: 0
  
  Helvetica is one short of the embodyment of god in Fonts. The replacement for it has long since been built and is called Futura. 99% of things we read in the western world goes back to these fonts and their anchestors. I seriously doubt they can find and establish something this iconic.
  But I'm curious anyway. IBM has money to burn and chances are their font doesn't suck. What I've seen so far looks ok to me, that much I can say. A replacement for Futura or Helvetica? Nope. Not even close.
  But a neat font? Yeah, probably.
  Futura was released in 1927, according to www.fonts.com.
2. Re:Good luck with that. by circusboy · 2017-11-09 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  wasn't Helvetica something of a response to Futura's lack of readability? I find Futura seems to optically sparkle when used as a body text in a way that Helvetica doesn't.
  
  --
  -- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
Helvetica is the New Helvetica. by wezelboy · 2017-11-09 10:13 · Score: 1

Helvetica Neue used to be the New Helvetica. Now Helvetica is the New Helvetica.
There is only one true IBM font by Traf-O-Data-Hater · 2017-11-09 12:46 · Score: 1

Berthold City. Those unmistakeable square-cornered letters used for the IBM logo, all the 70xx, 360, 370 manuals and numerous other IBM publications.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So...let's see it!? by mejustme · 2017-11-09 13:22 · Score: 1

All these comments, and not a single person pointed out the obvious: where is this font? Where are the side-by-side images showing some popular fonts next to this new IBM offering. "The quick brown fox, etc..." Event watched the video, but it is essentially useless. No real explanation as to why this is necessary over Helvetica, how crisper/softer/something it will be, easier to read, less ink, higher contrast, ...anything?
1. Re:So...let's see it!? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 15:19 · Score: 0
  
  Search the Internet for IBM Plex, download the fonts, unzip them, and inspect them for yourself. Don't get your hopes up, they look like all the other out-of-the-box body fonts.
2. Re:So...let's see it!? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 17:07 · Score: 0
  
  https://www.fontsquirrel.com/fonts/ibm-plex
They are firing people but worry about fonts by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 15:43 · Score: 0

IBM.
Curious.
Stupid it would seem.
./ers are all missing the point by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 19:13 · Score: 0

1. the article is written by design people for design people, they have their own jargon, it's no more or less ridiculous than the software one
2. designing a font is relatively easy and cheap nowadays, lots of efforts have gone in tooling those past years. Font designers have even discovered the use of CMSes! Certainly peanuts for a corporation like IBM. Even the Mozilla foundation has its own font set (with more faces than the IBM release).
3. Because it's easy releasing anything less than sans serif + serif + monospace would have been laughable
4. The technical aspects of fonts are still evolving at a fast pace, lots of elements have not been solved yet, OpenType and Unicode make regular new major revisions, every major OS or browser release reworks the way fonts are rendered
5. Even if Helvetica was perfect (it isn't) IBM needs to drop it as its licensing model is incompatible with web cloud and open source distribution – all market segments where software uses fonts and IBM needs to be present
(most of this also applies to the idiots that continue to use obsolete buggy limited legaly encumbered Microsoft Core fonts aka Arial in their software projects)
IBM already has its own font by defireality · 2017-11-10 05:35 · Score: 1

Why wouldn't they want to stick with this? https://urban-fonts.s3.amazona...
IBM's 2015 and 2016 Annual Report by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-10 09:32 · Score: 0

You can see the difference in font types between IBM's 2015 and 2016 Annual Report
My Experience by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-10 10:12 · Score: 0

When I came to IBM, it was a big discussion: Why does IBM keep Lotus Notes alive? Is this not the biggest piece of shit ever?