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

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.

Comments

Stupid

[aardvarkjoe]

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.

Re:Stupid

[MBGMorden]

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 THEY DO NOT BECOME OUTDATED.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.

Re:Stupid

[DontBeAMoran]

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.

Re:Stupid

[tigersha]

> 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

Re:Stupid

[Hognoxious]

And distracting from the important stuff like what colour to paint the bikesheds.

Re:Stupid

[OrangeTide]

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.

Re:Stupid

[Martin Blank]

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.