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

All Websites Look the Same

novolume.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 107 posts

Re: All Websites Look the Same

#31

Post by avodonosov »

kagamine wrote: post #22
avodonosov wrote: post #12

It's just one example of fashion in tech. Around ten years ago there was another fashion for web sites - all the panels had rounded corners (and it wasn't supported by CSS, so people created the rounded corners from pieces of images - very unproductive waste of time). Non-tech people, when ordering a web side, often just don't accept things which look different than other web sites they have seen. At that times it wa…

Don't want to nit-pick but, >gray text on web pages (even despite it violates W3C accessibility recommendations), the W3C don't recommend against grey text at all, they recommend that designers consider the contrast of text colour versus background colour, and to not use light grey on white. It's a matter of contrast and not a blanket rule. I do think it is important that we don't start making new silly rules about d…

Contrast, you're right. And also, there are good examples of gray (low contrast) texts - some auxiliary elements.

But when the main text - e.g. an article body - is published in low contrast so that I need to inspect HTML and disable the color to be able to read it, such cases make me sad :(((

:)

Re: All Websites Look the Same

#32

Post by inDigiNeous »

Who cares about the looks, really? The looks are there just to present the content, in a way that fits all the devices that are used to view it.

Sure, you can do some artsyfantsy pantsy stuff now and then, but then again, it's about the content too, just that the whole artsy website is the content.

And this guy has the most generic looking blog structure also, so why is he blaming the guilt on somebody else. I'm so glad I don't have to go through these "designed just because design" flash websites anymore and try to figure out different structures for each page.

Re: All Websites Look the Same

#33

Post by trymas »

If mentioned style works is simple, and represents/introduces product/service well, then why not. What annoys me is when designers/developers over do it, e.g. scroll hijacking, lots of heavy JS which introduces horrible lag, and unnecessary pop which ruins user experience.

Sorry, but `novolume.co.uk` is stepping into the the category of over doing it.

Huge, and super low contrast arrow buttons to switch articles. Why?

Italic serif slim and narrow font, from which my head hurts, eyes are twitching and is not readable (and some characters are unrecognisable, e.g. '&'). AFAIK, serif font is more readable then sans-serif, but this is not the case.

Custom scroll bar, why the hell do you need to replicate a perfect native widget my browser has (and this seems to be a new trend, probably replacing scroll hijacking)?

Crazy tilted, on hover shape and colour changing (and low-res) social buttons, why make it so complicated?

At least `novolume.co.uk` loads and renders fast, is responsive and does not have lagging UI.

Re: All Websites Look the Same

#35

Post by erik14th »

orthoganol wrote: post #11

He's right that most bootstrapped startup websites look the same, because they don't have designers on their team, their founders aren't trained in design, and they don't have the money or time to really flesh out the design. They just follow easy examples that are passable or in vogue. Or worse, maybe they just buy a template. But OP is wrong once you talk about startups that get money. I mean for some well known on…

Those you listed all look like the layout in the article.

Re: All Websites Look the Same

#36

Post by kagamine »

avodonosov wrote: post #31
kagamine wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't want to nit-pick but, >gray text on web pages (even despite it violates W3C accessibility recommendations), the W3C don't recommend against grey text at all, they recommend that designers consider the contrast of text colour versus background colour, and to not use light grey on white. It's a matter of contrast and not a blanket rule. I do think it is important that we don't start making new silly rules about d…

Contrast, you're right. And also, there are good examples of gray (low contrast) texts - some auxiliary elements. But when the main text - e.g. an article body - is published in low contrast so that I need to inspect HTML and disable the color to be able to read it, such cases make me sad :((( :)

I hear you, disable colour, ctrl+, ctrl+, ctrl+. OK, now I can read this!

Re: All Websites Look the Same

#37

Post by avodonosov »

kagamine wrote: post #36
avodonosov wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contrast, you're right. And also, there are good examples of gray (low contrast) texts - some auxiliary elements. But when the main text - e.g. an article body - is published in low contrast so that I need to inspect HTML and disable the color to be able to read it, such cases make me sad :((( :)

I hear you, disable colour, ctrl+, ctrl+, ctrl+. OK, now I can read this!

Exactly!

Re: All Websites Look the Same

#38

Post by exodust »

21echoes wrote: post #4

(Most) all websites should look the same. Most browsers look the same. Most car dashes look the same. Most newspapers look the same. Most books look the same. The web is not art. At least, not most of the time. Websites should only look markedly different with good reason. For most clients, there is not a good reason.

> "Most car dashes look the same"...

Not sure what cars you've been driving, but search for 'car dash' on google images and bask in the differences.

Saying that all websites should look the same might be reasonable when you're talking about one network or brand, but outside of that, creativity should be explored, encouraged and rewarded.

Who wants a world with every restaurant, bar, urban design or any design looking the same? Good design and UX has nothing to do with copying your neighbour's layout and changing a few colours. Just because that's frequently done, doesn't mean these cookie-cut sites deserve any praise other than "good copy 'n paste job mate".

Re: All Websites Look the Same

#39

Post by mattkevan »

> At times I think back to when websites were produced in Flash. For all its downfalls (and there were a lot) one thing was always true. Flash sites rarely looked the same.

The author clearly doesn't remember what it was actually like to arrive on a Flash site, and play the fun games of 'where has the designer hidden the navigation today?' and 'oh crap, how do I turn the sound off?'.

Design patterns are there to ensure that functionality works in a roughly consistent manner across different sites, so instead of having to spend ages figuring out an inscrutable interface, the user can easily buy a product or find the information they want and get on with their day.

This is not a trend. This is lots of people slowly figuring out how content should be structured for maximum usability in a web context. Layout conventions will develop over time, as new ideas are incorporated and technology changes, but that's a good thing.

As has been pointed out, books have looked roughly the same for the last few hundred years, but design innovation has only increased, as technology and our understanding of the conventions involved has improved.

The visual design area is more susceptible to trends - a few years ago everything was glossy, then with 'Flat UI' everything became dark blue and a sickly shade of green. But that's ok too. Except for the green, that was horrible.

The danger is with 'cargo cult' design. That's where the complaint against generic themes is valid – a style is used because it's popular without thinking about whether it's actually the best fit for the content and what's to be achieved.

Re: All Websites Look the Same

#40

Post by hkmurakami »

>Generic wins out every time.

Frankly, unless you are a company where design differentiation is paramount, it is much safer to do what everyone else is doing and be "good enough".

It's cheaper, faster, and possibly on average better for visitors to glean the messages you want them to hear, compared to more daring designs.

Post reply on HN