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

61–70 of 87 posts

Re: Anti-Web-Design Manifesto (2013)

#61

Post by lordsper »

A010 wrote: post #35
mscharrer wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really hate sites that send all content as html, but then hide it only to unhide it with JavaScript. It's getting quite common though. I wouldn't go as far as the OP and say no JS, but how about: don't use JS just because you can, use it to actually do something that makes the site more usable.

I think it's highly possible because ads, to prevent people disable JS to block ads so there's no content.

Adblockers take care of that. I run NoScript for security and not because it makes pages look prettier - believe me, it doesn't.

I see hiding the content of the site for lack of JS simply as lazy web development, which only considers the most common use case. I don't bother visiting sites who don't support NoScript or text-mode browsers such as Links2.

Re: Anti-Web-Design Manifesto (2013)

#62

Post by mscharrer »

diminish wrote: post #31

Somehow all the annoyances, abuse and clutter mentioned in the manifesto have won after the mobile app/javascript framework duo dominated to influence the newest web apps. Maybe we should build a new "sub-web" for hackers with a unique safe browser with no plugins, ajax, javascript, css-animations, html5-* with only non obstrusive sound, video, image and form support.

If only there was a search engine that filtered for these criteria.

Re: Anti-Web-Design Manifesto (2013)

#64

Post by krapp »

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…

The article seems to imply that the only legitimate use of the web is displaying static, text-based pages. There would be no Amazon.

Re: Anti-Web-Design Manifesto (2013)

#65

Post by eddd »

jalfresi wrote: post #51
eddd wrote: post #11

This article is suggesting not using any js library, no XMLHttpRequests, no single-page aps. Just go back to 1990?

Aww man, that was would be amazing. Oh wait, you were being sarcastic :(

I wasn't sarcastic, I am just pointing out that most of the shiny single-page apps don't have to be shiny whatsoever. Take stooq.com for example, I am using it because is reliable, fast and clean - but it still looks like from early 90'. The thing is, many companies decide to use fancy technologies/solution to bump theirs market value - it is not a way to go, but you cant change the environment. What's more - It is quite often a managers call to say 'we need our site to be cutting-edge', so they pick angular, react, whatever just because other companies do it.

Re: Anti-Web-Design Manifesto (2013)

#66

Post by WorldWideWayne »

paulojreis wrote: post #32

> With regards to visual design, the fact is that any individual has a far better idea of what constitutes comfortable-to-read text for them than a designer could. A designer either designing for his or her own tastes or trying to find some best-of-all-worlds design will ultimately fail to satisfy the vast majority of visitors to the sit > Designers, it may come as a surprise to you, but not everyone loves your work.…

> If a designer (or whoever decides) chooses [whatever] it's because...

Sorry, but you are not the authority on the reasons why competent professional designers (or whoever) chose anything. (and I'd argue thtat most professional web designers are bound by many, many requirements that they can't even change, like having intrusive advertising, javascript, tracking and plugins)

Everybody has a right to their opinion and obviously a lot of people don't like the way the web is being "designed" or else we wouldn't have scores of plugins used by millions of people to block or change things they don't like.

Re: Anti-Web-Design Manifesto (2013)

#67

Post by paulojreis »

WorldWideWayne wrote: post #66
paulojreis wrote: post #32

> With regards to visual design, the fact is that any individual has a far better idea of what constitutes comfortable-to-read text for them than a designer could. A designer either designing for his or her own tastes or trying to find some best-of-all-worlds design will ultimately fail to satisfy the vast majority of visitors to the sit > Designers, it may come as a surprise to you, but not everyone loves your work.…

> If a designer (or whoever decides) chooses [whatever] it's because... Sorry, but you are not the authority on the reasons why competent professional designers (or whoever) chose anything. ( and I'd argue thtat most professional web designers are bound by many, many requirements that they can't even change, like having intrusive advertising, javascript, tracking and plugins ) Everybody has a right to their opinion a…

I'm under the impression that you haven't read, at least fully, my reply.

> Sorry, but you are not the authority on the reasons why competent professional designers (or whoever) chose anything.

That's why, after the portion you quoted, I added an addendum: "If he did not, or he is not aware of the downsides, then it's a matter of incompetence, not web design".

> Most professional designers are bound by requirements that they can't change, like having intrusive advertising, javascript, tracking and plugins

... and that's why I added, exactly in the portion you quoted, a parenthesis stating "or whoever decides". How could it be clearer?

If "whoever decides" decided for any of these options, it's because he considered it outweighed the "cons" (so, by design), or he didn't considered the "cons" (so, by incompetence).

Re: Anti-Web-Design Manifesto (2013)

#68

Post by WorldWideWayne »

paulojreis wrote: post #67
WorldWideWayne wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a designer (or whoever decides) chooses [whatever] it's because... Sorry, but you are not the authority on the reasons why competent professional designers (or whoever) chose anything. ( and I'd argue thtat most professional web designers are bound by many, many requirements that they can't even change, like having intrusive advertising, javascript, tracking and plugins ) Everybody has a right to their opinion a…

I'm under the impression that you haven't read, at least fully, my reply. > Sorry, but you are not the authority on the reasons why competent professional designers (or whoever) chose anything. That's why, after the portion you quoted, I added an addendum: "If he did not, or he is not aware of the downsides, then it's a matter of incompetence, not web design". > Most professional designers are bound by requirements t…

I read it. You think "whoever" decided that their web page needs intrusive advertising, tracking, etc. did it in consideration of pros and cons... but with regards to the user experience?

I doubt it. They're thinking about money and that's it.

Re: Anti-Web-Design Manifesto (2013)

#69

Post by paulojreis »

WorldWideWayne wrote: post #68
paulojreis wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm under the impression that you haven't read, at least fully, my reply. > Sorry, but you are not the authority on the reasons why competent professional designers (or whoever) chose anything. That's why, after the portion you quoted, I added an addendum: "If he did not, or he is not aware of the downsides, then it's a matter of incompetence, not web design". > Most professional designers are bound by requirements t…

I read it. You think "whoever" decided that their web page needs intrusive advertising, tracking, etc. did it in consideration of pros and cons... but with regards to the user experience ? I doubt it. They're thinking about money and that's it.

Does it matter? What's at stake here is the manifesto being pinpointed at web design. If, whoever decides, decided that he should sacrifice UX for ads/tracking/whatever, then either he did it knowingly or unknowingly (so, a problem of competence). Either way, it's not solved by being against web design, it's solved by being against incompetence - in web design, in UX, in product decisions, whatever.

How can you blame "web designing" if someone decides that intrusive ads outweigh the UX cons or if someone doesn't even consider said cons? That's my point here - this is not a matter of web design, being anti-web design is misguided and futile. The problem is not web design, the problem is: frivolous or oblivious decision-making, lack of knowledge and consideration about whoever uses the digital product being designed, lack of knowledge about design process, lack of knowledge about design "elements" (layout, color, typography), lack of knowledge of the implications of using extensive e.g. JS...

Re: Anti-Web-Design Manifesto (2013)

#70

Post by krapp »

tldr; anything beyond unstyled, purely textual HTML in a single column, without plugins (and definitely without javascript) is objectively wrong and bad and people shouldn't be allowed to do it. I'm assuming images are fine but I wouldn't be surprised if not.

The last paragraph in this manifesto is the author pre-complaining about every possible change that will be made in HTML in the future. How much more "hipster yells at clouds" can you get?

As I too am a Person On The Internet, allow me to retort:

HTML was never entirely about displaying plain text, but content. That that content is primarily text doesn't imply it must be primarily text. That train left the station when img tags became a thing.

The ability to embed plugins was a breakthrough, not a mistake. Plugins are the reason video on the web is possible, and video on the web is revolutionary for sharing culture and expression. Flash and Java applets, for all their faults, allowed applications to be accessible by URL, and thanks to HTML5/Canvas and tools like asm.js and whatever-to-js transpilers, we're on the verge of having the web become a network of hyperlinked applications. When you think about the ramifications of that, it's a really big deal.

To want to forbid the web from even reaching the complexity and richness of HTML 1.0 is, frankly, asinine and presumptuous. Notwithstanding that, yes, simple text-based sites have a place and, yes, most uses of javascript to display simple text are kind of pointless and absurd, the author is wrong to want to limit the world's creativity and the web's expressive potential to the boundaries of his own personal elitist prejudice.

Post reply on HN