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

221–230 of 249 posts

Re: Perfect Motherfucking Website

#221

Post by danShumway »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #220
danShumway wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair, but using GNU's work as an example almost feels like cheating in a weird way ;). GNU is not building a hard-core minimalist website, they do include CSS on their page -- in fact they include more of it than this website does. So the problem isn't that GNU is too minimal or that they've sworn off of CSS, the problem is that modern GNU increasingly doesn't seem to know how to design anything at all when it comes…

GNU docs have good design in accordance with W3C best practices: rendering is user agent's job, and if it doesn't do the job per your preference, you change the user agent to the one that does or submit an RFE to your user agent vendor to support your preference.

> GNU docs have good design

Who's side are you on here, stop proving fctorial's point :)

> rendering is user agent's job

GNU uses more CSS than the joke website in question for an uglier result; they're putting in more effort to make something that's less readable. I don't see how anyone can call that good design. It would take literally 2 CSS declarations to improve their website's design for >90% of the people looking at their page, at no cost or inconvenience to any other user. Good user-interface design incorporates sensible defaults.

It is a very GNU-like thing to look at the current web ecosystem, notice that basically every browser acts a certain way and has a certain standard default styling for HTML, and then to still argue that it's the user's fault that their website looks the way it does.

I don't see any W3C best practices anywhere that argue column widths should be avoided, and GNU is clearly comfortable overriding default agent behavior for other parts of this page when it comes to indenting lists and styling code blocks.

Edit: actually, I stand corrected. GNU is including a bunch of styling code and then commenting it out so it doesn't work. What the heck, who is maintaining this page? Why is that stuff being shipped to the user if it's unusable? In any case, W3C best practice is very much NOT to avoid all CSS, that's a massive mischaracterization of their positions.

Re: Perfect Motherfucking Website

#222

Post by joshmanders »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #12

How much longer until we see one of these that imports 100mb of Javascript to make a responsive, reactive, server-rendered SPA. Saying things like "Just npx create-react-app fucker, it gives a better fucking user experience out of the box than your shit fucking browser does" and still claims to somehow be satire?

Alright so, I like these websites, because they are great. But a lot of people take their existence as a reason to shit on modern website development and say asinine shit like "all these websites are slow because they use react/vue/angular/whatever" so I registered modernfuckingwebsite.com to show that using modern build systems, modern tools, and all the hotness you can produce a fast, lightweight website that is just as "great" as these, completely negating their whole view of modern tools.

But I haven't had the time to put into it.

Re: Perfect Motherfucking Website

#223

Post by dathinab »

kuschku wrote: post #149
dathinab wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you use a color-calibrated Over 99% of users don't, most phones are not high end and as such don't have such a screen. > feeling of something as bright as looking into the fucking sun Again, not a experience around 99% of internet users can follow, their devices don't get that bright, especially not on a per-pixel basis. Also most people use devices in rooms with varying degrees of natural sunlight showing in. A…

> And if whites are to bright then it's because my screen is wrongly setup for my eyes/usage. A perfect color calibrated screen is ironically often not a perfectly setup screen for normal usage. There are very specific definitions for colors, and what they mean. #000000 means 0.1 nits, #ffffff means 100 nits. That's standardized and specified. The screen can't be wrong if it correctly matches the standard. If real-wo…

> #000000 means 0.1 nits, #ffffff means 100 nits. That's standardized and specified.

Uhm, scree brightness control is a thing. Adaptive brightness is standard even on non high end phones. Same for desktops etc.

So a part of a standard which maps color to specific brightness levels is pretty much irrelevant outside of the unrealistic case of a perfect calibrated monitor in a perfect environment. Which does exist. But again is for most internet users unrealistic.

Re: Perfect Motherfucking Website

#224

Post by jdmichal »

progval wrote: post #8

> And did you let the browser choose the font? Don’t make me read such text with Times New Roman. I don't understand this attitude. If you don't like Times New Roman, why don't you change your browser's default font? What I don't like is when websites tell my browser to use a different font or different colors than the ones I configured. (Off-topic, but something that really annoys me is websites that make text in ve…

Firefox allows you to lock fonts based on serif, sans-serif, and monospace. I have done such, along with also setting a minimum font size. And honestly the only thing it ever seems to break are those stupid icon fonts.

Re: Perfect Motherfucking Website

#225

Post by kuschku »

dathinab wrote: post #223
kuschku wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And if whites are to bright then it's because my screen is wrongly setup for my eyes/usage. A perfect color calibrated screen is ironically often not a perfectly setup screen for normal usage. There are very specific definitions for colors, and what they mean. #000000 means 0.1 nits, #ffffff means 100 nits. That's standardized and specified. The screen can't be wrong if it correctly matches the standard. If real-wo…

> #000000 means 0.1 nits, #ffffff means 100 nits. That's standardized and specified. Uhm, scree brightness control is a thing. Adaptive brightness is standard even on non high end phones. Same for desktops etc. So a part of a standard which maps color to specific brightness levels is pretty much irrelevant outside of the unrealistic case of a perfect calibrated monitor in a perfect environment. Which does exist. But…

> So a part of a standard which maps color to specific brightness levels is pretty much irrelevant outside of the unrealistic case of a perfect calibrated monitor in a perfect environment. Which does exist. But again is for most internet users unrealistic.

If you modify the brightness in software, you can also tonemap it properly and retain the contrast easily.

Re: Perfect Motherfucking Website

#226

Post by dragonwriter »

kuschku wrote: post #90
munchbunny wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes I know the art theory stuff about never using black because it doesn't appear naturally. I think the underlying reasons for that are underappreciated. When you pick #000000 for your text color, people won't see it as pure black anyway. Imperfections in your screen's backlighting aside, your screen reflects the ambient lighting, or, if you're outdoors and pointed the wrong direction on a sunny day, your screen r…

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…

> On a good monitor, the color contrast between #ffffff and #000000 is far beyond the contrast possible in nature.

No, it is not.

> No reflective material can reach those colors or that contrast.

Even if that was true, nature includes light sources as well as reflective materials.

Re: Perfect Motherfucking Website

#227

Post by minitech »

danShumway wrote: post #221
GoblinSlayer wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GNU docs have good design in accordance with W3C best practices: rendering is user agent's job, and if it doesn't do the job per your preference, you change the user agent to the one that does or submit an RFE to your user agent vendor to support your preference.

> GNU docs have good design Who's side are you on here, stop proving fctorial's point :) > rendering is user agent's job GNU uses more CSS than the joke website in question for an uglier result; they're putting in more effort to make something that's less readable. I don't see how anyone can call that good design. It would take literally 2 CSS declarations to improve their website's design for >90% of the people look…

> Edit: actually, I stand corrected. GNU is including a bunch of styling code and then commenting it out so it doesn't work.

Where do you see that? If you’re referring to the in the , that’s an old standard compatibility hack and doesn’t stop the styles from being applied.

Re: Perfect Motherfucking Website

#228

Post by jrockway »

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #161
jrockway wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

You're definitely right about being blinded during a startup delay. It's not every site but it does happen.

I agree that all websites should give users a dark mode. They don't, so we have to make our own.

Re: Perfect Motherfucking Website

#229

Post by danShumway »

minitech wrote: post #227
danShumway wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> GNU docs have good design Who's side are you on here, stop proving fctorial's point :) > rendering is user agent's job GNU uses more CSS than the joke website in question for an uglier result; they're putting in more effort to make something that's less readable. I don't see how anyone can call that good design. It would take literally 2 CSS declarations to improve their website's design for >90% of the people look…

> Edit: actually, I stand corrected. GNU is including a bunch of styling code and then commenting it out so it doesn't work. Where do you see that? If you’re referring to the in the , that’s an old standard compatibility hack and doesn’t stop the styles from being applied.

Yep that was what I was referring too. Good to know, today I learned.

Re: Perfect Motherfucking Website

#230

Post by lxe »

neogodless wrote: post #213
lxe wrote: post #74

I built an antithesis to this: https://lxe.github.io/everywebsite/

Please add some content so that I can start scrolling through it, and halfway into the content, have most of it blocked by a new modal!

That would make too much sense. Request denied.
Post reply on HN