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

All you may need is HTML

fabiensanglard.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 328 posts

Re: All you may need is HTML

#211

Post by cmdialog »

calsy wrote: post #185
cmdialog wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my personal, obviously anecdotal, experience it's always the "technical" guys who think things like this. This is why we have UI/UX teams and we don't let programmers create visual interfaces.

Because reading words requires substantial styling enhancements over what the browser is already capable of? Has anyone picked up a book lately? You need a UI team to create a page of readable text? That sounds like an expensive waste. But it sounds like those 'UI' people think they know better and don't need suggestions from programmers about reading words, even though its what they do all day.

It's very funny that you seem to think reading code and reading a website are the exact same type of activities, and the same type of reading. They are not.

And I don't know where you've been for the last 30 some years, but the web is not a text only format, and the reason HTML was invented was specifically to be able to create a designed space where text can actually make sense and is not a gigantic wall of impossibly small black on white text.

Re: All you may need is HTML

#212

Post by photojosh »

enriquto wrote: post #136
ryloric wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 7 fucking declarations. That's how much CSS it took to turn that grotesque pile of shit into this easy-to-read masterpiece. Such drastic difference with basic adjustments, damn

I honestly prefer the original version without css. Plain browser styles have a kind of raw beauty that it's very hard to surpass.

I would agree, with the exception of the text lines being too long.

I flipped over into reader mode and it's much improved, solely because of line length and dark mode.

Re: All you may need is HTML

#213

Post by galangalalgol »

bombcar wrote: post #158
enriquto wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly prefer the original version without css. Plain browser styles have a kind of raw beauty that it's very hard to surpass.

In my mind "raw browser" look corresponds with "almost insane details coming" as the only sites still using that are often run by people who are WAY more concerned with the content they want to talk about than with the presentation.

Um, shouldn't all people be WAY more concerned with the content than the presentation? I don't want to read stream of consciousness with occasional lack of spaces and random case, but I'd really prefer to only read websites by people who give zero effs to presentation, and I had prior to this moment assumed everyone agreed, but that it was fun to do presentation, so people did. There are people who care about the presentation of what they are reading on even close to the same level of the content itself?!

Re: All you may need is HTML

#214

Post by denton-scratch »

calsy wrote: post #183
eikenberry wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Design isn't just about aesthetics. Why dismiss aesthetics out of hand like this, equating it with vanity and ego? Aesthetics are very important to people, possibly even more so than the information on the page.

Aesthetics are more important than content?? Where did you get that idea from?

Obviously, that depends on the purpose of the page/site. If the page is a brochure or advertisement, content is almost irrelevant; you could link to it, for buyers that wanted content. Brochures and ads are about feelings, and aesthetics are about feelings.

That's not what I think the www is for, but not everyone agrees with me.

Re: All you may need is HTML

#215

Post by fleddr »

H4ZB7 wrote: post #95
TheRealPomax wrote: post #92

It sounds like someone forgot that CSS is not some independent technology from HTML, a webpage is "HTML+CSS", it's one thing. Sure, browsers injects a shitty default style if you just need to put some plain text data out there, but HTML just semantically marks up your data, CSS is what makes it easy to read and understand. If you proclaim that CSS is "for vanity", your stables must have an awfully big ladder for gett…

nope, it's definitely just for vanity. it will be hard to explain that on a forum dedicated to people whose work revolves around upholding this myth, though. html not being readable without css is a bug or bad positioning. i would never design a document format that requires something as complex as css to be readable. anyway i find sites that use just plain default html readable. one big mistake people make is to let…

Ah yes, the myth of rejecting nihilism. Just like my last restaurant visit where I ordered stale bread and water. Enough for survival, the rest is pure vanity.

Re: All you may need is HTML

#216

Post by low_tech_love »

bombcar wrote: post #107
alduin32 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also a great example of how even such a little can go wrong. The CSS of the second website is wrong, as it uses 'color' without setting 'background-color'. Assuming anything about the default background color is not possible because it is user-configurable in most browsers. At least http://motherfuckingwebsite.com remains readable when you change your color settings (the second one is completely unreadable on my…

You want https://thebestmotherfucking.website

It’s ok, but it’s already a bit too much. :)

Re: All you may need is HTML

#217

Post by calsy »

Kerrick wrote: post #199
calsy wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because reading words requires substantial styling enhancements over what the browser is already capable of? Has anyone picked up a book lately? You need a UI team to create a page of readable text? That sounds like an expensive waste. But it sounds like those 'UI' people think they know better and don't need suggestions from programmers about reading words, even though its what they do all day.

Fun fact: your text will look nothing like a book if you use HTML with no CSS and rely only on the user agent default style sheet. Books are designed, too.

substantial styling enhancements.

Re: All you may need is HTML

#218

Post by enriquto »

photojosh wrote: post #212
enriquto wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly prefer the original version without css. Plain browser styles have a kind of raw beauty that it's very hard to surpass.

I would agree, with the exception of the text lines being too long. I flipped over into reader mode and it's much improved, solely because of line length and dark mode.

Yes, the only reasonable css I'd concede is a max width in ch. But this should really be a browser standard to begin with.

Re: All you may need is HTML

#219

Post by rcarr »

hannes0 wrote: post #86
low_tech_love wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, thanks for those links! No joke; the CSS on the better site is literally going to become my default CSS from now on.

If you want a bit more, but not the frameworks with thousands of unused classes, this might be helpful: https://www.cssbed.com/

> If you want a bit more, but not the frameworks with thousands of unused classes,

I can't speak for other frameworks but tailwind only compiles the classes you actually use at build.

Re: All you may need is HTML

#220

Post by LordDragonfang »

mikechalmers wrote: post #88
ARandomerDude wrote: post #60

> WHY YOU MAY NOT NEED CSS > The fluff does not really matter much. > WHY YOU MAY NOT NEED CUSTOM FONTS > Custom fonts are a waste of bandwidth and a visual annoyance Right-click -> View Page Source. Top of the page is a stylesheet that loads 2 fonts. Hard to take this article seriously.

To be fair, the author uses the qualifier "may" and explains the desire for monospace and consistency. It's not like it's clickbait, the author makes a valid argument. Perhaps disregard sub-headings if it results in overlooking the nuance of the article's overall suggestions.

Except monospace fonts shouldn't be used for prose, so the author is actively making the reading experience worse for... aesthetics and vanity reasons?

It's hard to respect the advice of a designer whose deviations from their own rules make the design worse.

Almost any web-safe font[1] would have been a better choice.

[1]https://www.awayback.com/index.php/2010/02/03/revised-font-s...

Post reply on HN