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

161–170 of 249 posts

Re: Perfect Motherfucking Website

#161

Post by DyslexicAtheist »

jrockway wrote: post #128
booleandilemma wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This one has a dark theme though.

I have stopped waiting for website authors to figure out how to make a dark theme. I just have my user agent do it with https://darkreader.org/ Like ad blockers, sometimes you have to adjust it, but it usually Just Works. The main innovation from this is that my display has much improved contrast, because I can set the brightness for text on a black background, instead of setting the brightness for an entire screen o…

with dark-reader you still have the problem of getting blinded at night for the first second or so until the DOM finished parsing. There were some workarounds with userChrome.css userContent.css that solved this for a while, but they broke in recent builds so I'm back to feeling like a deer staring at the headlights every time a new tab opens on a page.

I'm not 100% certain that this should be forced by the browser and IMHO it's the websites owners job to provide properly working dark theme and the UI/UE they think fits best their purpose (and not the browsers). Unless the assumption is that styling across all sites should look 100% identical which may appeal to some, though if I really want that then I can go look for content on gemini:// and no page will ever use their own styling other than what I am telling it to. Maybe it's just me but I like being dazzled and surprised with new design and style that I've not seen before.

Re: Perfect Motherfucking Website

#162

Post by kuschku »

hoophoop wrote: post #133
kuschku wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> WHY. WHY DO PEOPLE DO THIS. Do you like 400 nits of #ffffff right into your eyeballs? No? Me neither. The alternative is absolute darkness with extremely bright text, which in turn makes it unreadable (if you have astigmatism as I do) and literally causes pain due to the high contrast. Nothing in nature has such an extreme contrast. The only reason anyone would ever use full contrast is if they have a shitty 6-bit…

> #ffffff is the color of looking directly into the sun and absolutely painful bright, #000000 is the color of the deepest, starless night No. There's no definition of what they map to. That's why we need USERS to be able to scale the ranges of brightness and contrast. My environment changes during the day. I want to be the one in control of my screen, not some random website.

> I want to be the one in control of my screen, not some random website.

That's not really an option, though. You'd have to separate text and media from the website, split it apart, and configure it separately, as most websites just have everything without any color management.

If these shitty websites with full contrast would at least set a colorspace for their images, so I could take the color profile of a cheap 2004 LCD as default for unmanaged media and text, I'd at least avoid the painful situation.

Re: Perfect Motherfucking Website

#163

Post by jdiez17 »

kstenerud wrote: post #135
lelandbatey wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Join the contrast rebellion and demand high-contrast text: https://contrastrebellion.com/

OMG that website is so easy to read! It's a breath of fresh air! What would be really cool is if web browsers offered a mode that forced a contrast minimum when viewing websites. This would benefit devs and users alike: Users would have a pushbutton way to make bad websites readable, and devs would have a push button to show what their site would look like to users who get annoyed enough to push that button.

Except they hijack scrolling (I think their intention is to “snap” to various sections). On my device, that puts the viewport at some point between sections, and I cannot manually scroll to correct it. So I can’t read the content either. Well done there.

Re: Perfect Motherfucking Website

#164

Post by dspillett »

hardwaregeek wrote: post #42

The overly curse happy programmer speak is so very stale. I'm not offended or anything but it's just not that great. It doesn't make the content more interesting. It doesn't make the author seem any cooler. It's just meh. It reminds me of Epic Meal Time; a facade of coolness based on cursing, alcohol and over the top food. I love that instead of this style we're getting a new generation of programmers who are genuine…

> The overly curse happy programmer speak is so very stale.

This one isn't so bad in context. It is several down a chain of pages responding to each other that started with a sweary one. As well as each page adding more points (or arguing agaist previously stated ones) they have added a little extra profanity too.

On its own I'd agree with you assessment, but within the pattern if you have followed the story it fits less awkwardly.

Re: Perfect Motherfucking Website

#165

Post by wrycoder »

danShumway wrote: post #127
0xEFF wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And a license.

I took booleandilemma's comment as a joke, but to the broader point, why does a joke page that's smaller than a blog post need a license? Does it add something to the satire, or does it make it funnier? Clearly the original page's lack of a license didn't make it impossible for anyone else to iterate on it. And again, I can't stress this enough, the point of the original page was not that every single addition you co…

https://github.com/LeoColomb/perfectmotherfuckingwebsite/blo...

Re: Perfect Motherfucking Website

#166

Post by jschwartzi »

kuschku wrote: post #119
jschwartzi wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah definitely. And also be sure to switch all your keys on your keyboard to a hardwood. I prefer mahogany for its bright clicks and depth of response versus the equivalent plastic keycaps.

If you use these high contrast colors, you will break it for users on good displays. That means potential investors, people on iPhones, people on expensive samsung phones. Those are the people you usually want as customers. And you're making your website painful for them. That's a decision you can make, but don't be surprised if you'll fail with that attitude.

Unless I'm writing a blog or something, in which case I'm not looking for customers and I really don't care if anyone reads it or not.

Re: Perfect Motherfucking Website

#167

Post by yoz-y »

hwc wrote: post #71

All of those changes *should* be the *default*! i.e.: - dark mode should change default colors to white on black. - viewport default should be "width=device-width, initial-scale=1" - HTML's only supported charset should be UTF-8. - Default CSS for body should be something like: body{ max-width:40em; margin:0 auto; padding:1em; }

Default dark mode swap would break _a lot_ of websites. Anything that does not do a full CSS reset including Colors basically.

Re: Perfect Motherfucking Website

#168

Post by bluetwo »

perennate wrote: post #147
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 agree that they might be missing the point, but I also feel that adding a one or two extra CSS lines is really needed to turn something that is very unpleasant to read (the biggest problem being the unlimited width) into something that is really basically perfect. Like, this one is actually pretty much perfect, while the original makes me want to manually add a max-width from the inspector.

I agree. You could pour 80% of web content into this and it would work.

Re: Perfect Motherfucking Website

#170

Post by lhorie »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #121
lhorie wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people see `px` and assume it's physical pixels and because they know some devices have different pixel densities, they go complaining about how coding in terms of pixels instead of `em` doesn't account for density, unaware that `px` refers logical pixels[0] [0] https://blogs.perficient.com/2014/12/24/css-pixel-ratio-or-h...

First, that article is about smartphones. Second, even on smartphones, logical or physical, pixels are not related to text, they are related to the screen resolution.

Not sure what argument you're trying to make; can you clarify? This article is also partially about smartphones (dark mode, responsiveness, etc). Back when `em` was not a thing yet, text was measured in `px`, where 16px was considered to be the "default" size for readability purposes (and `em` sizes are a function of a base value in `px`).

Saying that pixels are unrelated to text isn't really accurate, since text obviously occupies space and pixels are a unit of space, and back in the day, expressing layout relationships in terms of pixels was fairly standard.

Post reply on HN