Live data from Hacker News

Redesigning GitHub Repository Page

tonsky.me

21–30 of 315 posts

Re: Redesigning GitHub Repository Page

#21
The tabs especially looks like a terrible idea. Something that had more than enough space on every screen has now become a huge, long list of options that you have to scan every time to find the one you want.

Removal of icons also plays into that since they were the visual hooks you could use to navigate after a little while of usage.

Then the final redesign, I’m not sure there’s anything to say about it other than that I strongly dislike it. Services like github change their image at their peril, and I just don’t think that is worth it.

Re: Redesigning GitHub Repository Page

#22
Definitely states the right problems, but not the right solutions.

The commits box is also bigger than the files box, which doesn't make much sense. Whether a commit box even should be there is a big question. How useful is commits to the average developer browsing a repo? I think a bit useful, but not useful enough to have 1/3 of the screen width.

Stats of a repo is pretty nice, because it gives an overview of how active it is, etc. But the problem is that majority of GitHub repos are empty and not that active, so it'll make most of the repos look like ghost towns. Not something you'd want on your site.

Moving all git tabs into the GitHub tabs makes it even harder to use the UI. You have to spend way too much mental load just to find the right tab to click on. It looks better, but will be harder to use.

The "Watch" button, moving description and tags is an improvement, and I'm for a redesign of some sort.

Re: Redesigning GitHub Repository Page

#24
post #20
post #16

No. I hate it. Especially the part when you're changing a design just because it's 'dated'. The two-level hierarchy split makes perfect sense for git metadata vs github repo metadata. It might not be sexy, but it makes technical sense. It works. Millions of people are used to it. There's other things to fix (like code review). Stop fucking around with things for no good reason.

I feel like this is a disproportionately angry response for what amounts to some play with the UI, and I think we should praise the author's willingness to share this publicly instead.

Why would someone post this other than to gather feedback? Yes, this redesign idea upsets me. However, that doesn't make the points I raise (from the point of view of a daily GitHub user! and one that uses it professionally!) any less valid.

Re: Redesigning GitHub Repository Page

#25
I think it's strange to focus on all these details without addressing what seems to me the overwhelming problem with the GitHub layout - the deprioritisation of the readme. Why is it below the fold?

I was very confused for a considerable time when people would point me to GitHub for a description of a project, because there didn't appear to be a description, just a repo. Was I supposed to build it to see what it was?

This seems very silly in retrospect, but there really was a month or two where I just didn't understand at all what I was supposed to be doing there, and I've never forgotten it.

And why? Why is it so critical that the first thing people see is the file structure, and not a description of the project? Echoing the article, I suppose it makes it "about git", but even when I'm interested enough to start poking around, I'm more likely to clone a project than browse through it on the site.

It just feels intentionally obtuse.

Re: Redesigning GitHub Repository Page

#26

I think it's strange to focus on all these details without addressing what seems to me the overwhelming problem with the GitHub layout - the deprioritisation of the readme. Why is it below the fold? I was very confused for a considerable time when people would point me to GitHub for a description of a project, because there didn't appear to be a description, just a repo. Was I supposed to build it to see what it was?…

I mention this in a sibling comment, as I've thought something similar: maybe the README should be on top. The problem, as I mention there, is that when you use GitHub as a tool, it's more common to navigate to the files than refer to the README. And with long READMEs, that's potentially a lot of scrolling to get to the files.

What this implies is that GitHub is not your project page. The README there should be more development focused, and there should be a separate project page which goes into more detail about project-level things.

Re: Redesigning GitHub Repository Page

#27
> If you feel disoriented, give it a minute. Once you are used to it, you might notice it’s actually easier on the eyes and a bit lighter.

I've been staring at it for 5 minutes now and I'm still disoriented. The borders and gradients gave the design an attractive depth and by removing them you ruined for me. The whole high-contrast/no-gradient thing is also one of the reasons I dislike using Gitlab. It was all going pretty well before then, though.

Re: Redesigning GitHub Repository Page

#28
The final result looks too widget-y/SPA-y, overloaded with information.

That's precisely a front where GH wins (over Gitlab): it's visually calm and sparse, ideal for something that would be part of daily, thoughtful work.

Re: Redesigning GitHub Repository Page

#30
post #21

The tabs especially looks like a terrible idea. Something that had more than enough space on every screen has now become a huge, long list of options that you have to scan every time to find the one you want. Removal of icons also plays into that since they were the visual hooks you could use to navigate after a little while of usage. Then the final redesign, I’m not sure there’s anything to say about it other than t…

The tabs redesign suggestion are actually one of the things I like best here!

I hate the two (it's actually THREE including the top black bar) navbars, I always get confused about where to look to find something or what i'm clicking on, and I've been using GH for years!

Post reply on HN