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

Perfect Motherfucking Website

perfectmotherfuckingwebsite.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 249 posts

Re: Perfect Motherfucking Website

#151

Post by yoz-y »

reacharavindh wrote: post #120
UI_at_80x24 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://contrastrebellion.com/ More high-contrast options exist then Black foreground on a White background. I'm not disagreeing with your point, I loathe grey on grey sites. Being visually impaired nothing makes me rage-quit your site quicker if my DarkReader extension can't unfuck a site. I'm posting https://contrastrebellion.com/ so all the replies and followup conversations can see it too.

That is one awful website to read on mobile safari. The scroll bar is hijacked to make the text unreadable - how ironic!? May be some should make scrollhijackrebellion.com ;-)

Add teeny tiny text to it too. On a basic website i can at least pinch. With scroll jacking it’s all broken.

Re: Perfect Motherfucking Website

#152

Post by coldtea »

danShumway wrote: post #56

I want to hecking scream. The point of the original website in this chain was not that you couldn't do media queries, or that all of your designs had to be unstyled. It was a gosh-darned satire that showed that even if you did literally nothing , your website would still be responsive and readable and load fast. The fact that it did nothing, that it was just a completely unstyled HTML page was the reason that the jok…

>>I want to hecking scream.

Overreacting much?

>The point of the original website in this chain was not that you couldn't do media queries, or that all of your designs had to be unstyled. It was a gosh-darned satire that showed that even if you did literally nothing, your website would still be responsive and readable and load fast. The fact that it did nothing, that it was just a completely unstyled HTML page was the reason that the joke worked.

Yeah, so? Who cares about the point of the original website? As if it was some sacred ultimate truth, that only makes sense in the exact original wording and message?

The point of THIS website is that you can improve upon the original "do nothing" website by a lot, and still do almost nothing: just add 10 tiny CSS lines.

Re: Perfect Motherfucking Website

#153

Post by deergomoo »

indigochill wrote: post #75
rkangel wrote: post #7

From " http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ " which is one up the chain: > A little less contrast WHY. WHY DO PEOPLE DO THIS. To give this person credit they have at least chosen some sensible values, rather than gone with something that was just about enough on an expensive graphic designer high-contrast monitor and then not tested it on anything else. Leaving the rest of us squinting to try and read text or manua…

Also what's up with those side margins? A little margin is nice (HN's feel reasonable), but the margins on both PMFW and BMFW look like they follow the philosophy of maximizing scrolling and margins to cram a bunch of ads in the margins, only without the ads. One caveat might be that I'm viewing them on a desktop monitor and not on a cellphone. (Edit: Okay, I should have read TFW. They mention the reason for the line…

Apparently optimal reading width is approx. 65 characters wide.

There's definitely a sweet spot; I typically have my browser windows at 2/3 width on a 2560px wide monitor. 100% width lines are a chore to read honestly, there's definitely a higher cognitive load.

Re: Perfect Motherfucking Website

#154

Post by svat »

Related/I like this: https://jgthms.com/web-design-in-4-minutes/

(IMO someone ought to write, if one doesn't already exist, an interactive tool that suggests recommended styling for your site one by one, and you can accept or reject each of them, then save the CSS file when you're done.)

See also (it works fine in Firefox but the fonts don't seem to change in Chrome and I don't know why): https://mbarkhau.keybase.pub/readable-text/index.html

Re: Perfect Motherfucking Website

#155

Post by andrewzah »

danShumway wrote: post #56

I want to hecking scream. The point of the original website in this chain was not that you couldn't do media queries, or that all of your designs had to be unstyled. It was a gosh-darned satire that showed that even if you did literally nothing , your website would still be responsive and readable and load fast. The fact that it did nothing, that it was just a completely unstyled HTML page was the reason that the jok…

I don't agree with this conclusion. The original could have added ~7 lines of css and made it about 100x more readable, while still making the same point.

Re: Perfect Motherfucking Website

#156

Post by kuschku »

arthur2e5 wrote: post #150
kuschku wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a good monitor, the color contrast between #ffffff and #000000 is far beyond the contrast possible in nature. No reflective material can reach those colors or that contrast. That color contrast is perfect for a game, a movie or an image. But you don't want the feeling of something as bright as looking into the fucking sun mixed with the darkness of the deepest starless night. That's just painful, both in light mod…

Making sRGB 1000 nits is extremely bad colorimetry. sRGB is supposed to go with 80 nits in its original definition, and being an order of magnitude off indicates something very wrong with your system's concept of what "standard dynamic range" entails.

My own monitor calibrates sRGB to 100 nits (thank god), but a lot of consumer displays (especially smartphones) are so badly color managed that they display sRGB at 600nits and more, with no option to properly change that.

Generally, media and text need very different contrast ratios and colorspaces, and text should never use the full contrast available.

But the big issue is that most content is using entirely unmanaged colors, not even correctly setting them to sRGB (or actually the color profile of whatever shitty 6-bit 100:1 contrast panel from 2004 they managed to find on the dump).

If that was actually used, we wouldn't have any of these issues and everything would be correctly tonemapped. But they don't, they set no profile, which in some software means "whatever the display supports" (although recently enough software enforces "probably sRGB at 1000:1 contrast 100nits max brightness" luckily).

Re: Perfect Motherfucking Website

#157

Post by coldtea »

rkangel wrote: post #7

From " http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ " which is one up the chain: > A little less contrast WHY. WHY DO PEOPLE DO THIS. To give this person credit they have at least chosen some sensible values, rather than gone with something that was just about enough on an expensive graphic designer high-contrast monitor and then not tested it on anything else. Leaving the rest of us squinting to try and read text or manua…

>WHY. WHY DO PEOPLE DO THIS.

Because too much contrast on a monitor means white on black, which on average (that is, 99% of people's setups) brightness levels settings strains the eyes and people actively dislike it.

Its not some book reflecting ambient light, but a monitor with a led shining white (blue-ish) light on your eyes...

>Contrast is good.

Water is good too. Too much water though, and you die: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

Re: Perfect Motherfucking Website

#158

Post by Matumio »

Veen wrote: post #57
rkangel wrote: post #7

From " http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ " which is one up the chain: > A little less contrast WHY. WHY DO PEOPLE DO THIS. To give this person credit they have at least chosen some sensible values, rather than gone with something that was just about enough on an expensive graphic designer high-contrast monitor and then not tested it on anything else. Leaving the rest of us squinting to try and read text or manua…

> WHY. WHY DO PEOPLE DO THIS Because designers are taught that too much contrast causes eye strain. They're advised against putting pure black text on bright white backgrounds. https://www.wired.com/2016/10/how-the-web-became-unreadable/

I never managed to read this article past its title. I always get distracted by the fact that, after one second, the text gets obscured behind a pop-up.

Re: Perfect Motherfucking Website

#159

Post by danShumway »

fctorial wrote: post #140
danShumway wrote: post #56

I want to hecking scream. The point of the original website in this chain was not that you couldn't do media queries, or that all of your designs had to be unstyled. It was a gosh-darned satire that showed that even if you did literally nothing , your website would still be responsive and readable and load fast. The fact that it did nothing, that it was just a completely unstyled HTML page was the reason that the jok…

I beg to differ. The first website looks horrible on widescreen displays. A lot of old websites follow the style of first website and their readability could be improved 10 times by adding 10 lines of CSS.

> The first website looks horrible on widescreen displays

But you were able to read it, right? You didn't have to go find a separate computer to use to figure out what it was saying. The text didn't get cut off when you resized your browser window.

> The first website looks horrible

I mean, yes? I'm not sure what you're saying by this though. Nobody (at least nobody worth taking seriously) is telling you that you should follow the style of the first website. You should have max-widths and throw some CSS on your page. To quote the original website:

> I'm not actually saying your **** site should look like this. What I'm saying is that all the problems we have with websites are ones we create ourselves. Websites aren't broken by default, they are functional, high-performing, and accessible. You break them.

There's this argument in all of the followup websites that seems to boil down to "it's easier to make websites look better than the original." And yes? But who is arguing with you that we should deprecate CSS from the browser? Who is arguing that it's a hard task to make something that looks and reads nicer than a completely unstyled page? It's a weirdly oblivious misreading of the original joke.

Post reply on HN