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

Anti-Web-Design Manifesto (2013)

brandon.invergo.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 87 posts

Re: Anti-Web-Design Manifesto (2013)

#12

Post by mscharrer »

yoz-y wrote: post #2

That seems quite excessive and only applicable for web sites that display articles. Amazon without javascript and multi-column pages would be unbearable. Ad-supported content is fine and keeps the web free, as long as ads are sufficiently on-topic and unobtrusive (sponsored posts, light banners à la The Deck, native advertising...). Also, the fact that the page is unreadable without either using a custom CSS or resiz…

I works quite fine without any css for me with any window size I tried. Are you using a mobile device? However, he does include images from third party sites which may cause referrer leakage which goes against the no-tracking issue he raised. (I'm only being this harsh because the article is too)

Re: Anti-Web-Design Manifesto (2013)

#15

Post by hello_there_you »

Not everyone has these demands and well.. cares this much, to be honest. I would say that the majority of web browsers (the human kind) simply don't mind the different fonts, and colors and what not, it's part of the experience and who the hell even knows what CSS is?

This is of course obvious to all of us, and probably to this author as well, but I felt like I had to point that out.

Strange.

Re: Anti-Web-Design Manifesto (2013)

#16

Post by markyc »

enno wrote: post #10
markyc wrote: post #3

Under very few circumstances do you actually need the visitor's email address how do you retreive a forgotten password?

I believe the point was that you probably don't need the user to make an account. If they don't need an account, they have no password, and you need no email address, unless your true goal is to put as many people as possible on your mailing list and spam them.

actually, in the same paragraph he goes on to say:

In any case, if a login is required, take the absolute minimum of necessary information, ideally only a login name and a password.

maybe better than a login name and password, make it an email address and password. email address seems pretty vital for any kind of future communication

Re: Anti-Web-Design Manifesto (2013)

#17

Post by mscharrer »

markyc wrote: post #16
enno wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the point was that you probably don't need the user to make an account. If they don't need an account, they have no password, and you need no email address, unless your true goal is to put as many people as possible on your mailing list and spam them.

actually, in the same paragraph he goes on to say: In any case, if a login is required, take the absolute minimum of necessary information, ideally only a login name and a password. maybe better than a login name and password, make it an email address and password. email address seems pretty vital for any kind of future communication

Some sites let the user provide a email address in order to allow password reset, but don't force it. I think this is a good practice.

Re: Anti-Web-Design Manifesto (2013)

#18

Post by enno »

clemlais wrote: post #9

I don't see the point of these manifesto-rants. To quote : "designers with goals often counter to our own interests". Well of course and it's perfectly fine. The website you visit is not yours, and is not made to comply to all of your demands. If you don't like what you see don't visit it. The day you pay to visit a website, you will have the right to complain.

What the article proposes is an extreme position, and while I don't agree that the entire web can work this way, a lot of it can. Look at the page you're currently viewing (hacker news): It's by no means a terrible experience, and yet it manages to check all the boxes: it has no javascript necessary for viewing (there is one function for voting, but that is non-essential), no proprietary plugins, no ads, no visual clutter, doesn't download fonts, no tracking, and if I just want to read content, no account is required.

So we see that it's not impossible to make sites that follow the goals of this "manifesto", and I would say that all of these non-features speaks in favor of the quality of HN.

Clearly, there are sites that do not follow these guidelines, and their business model makes it impossible for them to do so (Facebook, anyone?). As a consumer, which one of those would I rather use?

Re: Anti-Web-Design Manifesto (2013)

#19

Post by soft_dev_person »

mhd wrote: post #7
soft_dev_person wrote: post #4

body { max-width: 1000px; } Ahh. Much better.

Strangely enough the CSS has "body { /* width: 47em; */ }" commented out. Maybe they really want to show the importance of user CSS?

He clearly makes a point of supporting user CSS, but also a point of being usable by default, so it clearly misses that...

Also, I doubt most regular users could be bothered to actually write custom CSS for the entire web. Most people have zero knowledge of how to do it, not to mention how to actually improve what they want to improve.

The only reasonable real world case I can see is accessibility, which is certainly a valid case, and should be considered by all web designers/developers.

Post reply on HN