Sorry to be a Negative Nelly. I'm sure some devs worked hard on that sigh. I do like the typeface itself.
They also tend to get upvoted to the top, where they choke out interesting conversation. That's where this one was before I marked it off-topic.
The upvotes are the greater problem, but it's harder to do anything about that.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16701009
But really, it's jarring, jumpy, doesn't feel consistent (why are some transitions done by scrolling and others by clicking, when they look the same?), choppy, unnecessarily interactive, it's simply awful. There are good interactive content experiences on the web, this isn't one of them.
Compare with: "The Pianist and the Lobster" in the NYT.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/21/opinion/edito...
Edit: (2018) in the title would be in order.
The page design trend though feels user hostile. No, you can't scroll directly to the information. Your eyes must see all this JavaScript glory
I had underestimated how often the frameworks/languages chosen was influenced by a developer simply wanting to built up skills in that area, rather than it being the best tool for the job.
But, interestingly enough, it seems to me that this can often lead to great results! The developer is motivated both to prove that their decision could solve the problem and also to learn the technology for reasons beyond that project alone.
It seems that might be what’s going on here: the graphic designer is flexing, and a page about a font is trending on HN.
If I were to guess, whoever designed the page was consciously riffing off of Paul Rand's (designer of the IBM logos that this typeface is based on) graphic work, particularly from the late 70s to early 90s:
https://www.paulrand.design/work/IBM.html
Except that the colors in particular which were a bold choice in print, are positively eye-watering on modern screens.
If you landed on this site, it's because you found IBM Plex elsewhere and decided to take some time to find out more about it. And IBM knows you have a choice of thousands of fonts, so it purposely wants to go overboard on the presentation, show you how much thought went into these fonts, and hopefully even make you a bit nostalgic or emotional.
It's also a typography presentation, anyone viewing it on mobile isn't really the target audience anyway.
That being said, I still think its a poor all-around presentation.
For the target audience, who think about typefaces more critically, there is value in a deep dive into the unique characteristics of this typeface. The why, the how. The entire site experience expresses and reinforces these ideas.