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

Future Blues – Emily's Cowboy Bebop Page (1999)

futureblues.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 238 posts

Re: Future Blues – Emily's Cowboy Bebop Page (1999)

#41

Post by simplicio »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #23

The second domain I ever registered was for my ex-wife’s cartoon fan site for a particular Disney cartoon series back in ‘98. Her drive to digitize stills from the show and write character bios and episode summaries was something I never understood, but she was certainly dedicated. I’d imagine all of that kind of compulsion ends up on Wikia sites and such today, but back then it was do-it-yourself. She was writing HT…

I remember in the early wikipedia days, Jimmy Wales complaining (in a good natured way) how a bunch of anime series had more pages devoted to them on wikipedia then World War II.

Re: Future Blues – Emily's Cowboy Bebop Page (1999)

#44

Post by Kamq »

kleiba wrote: post #2

Why is this on here? Sorry, I'm missing the context.

1. This is a site for weird internet nerds, which has a healthy overlap with people who like cowboy bebop.

2. The site is an excellent example of a small web 1.0 site run by a single person. This is a (possibly a painful) reminder for some that the web doesn't have to be SEO optimized corporate BS, and of a time when the internet was full of wonder and the possibilities seemed endless.

Re: Future Blues – Emily's Cowboy Bebop Page (1999)

#45

Post by Forge36 »

zwaps wrote: post #37
jasoneckert wrote: post #4

Aside from the Cowboy Bebop nostalgia hit, this site is a great example of how clear, creative, and fun sites were in the late 1990s. While I struggle to identify the many reasons why I think sites looked better back then, I think being simple and content focused are two of them.

To be fair, for 1999, this is an all around fantastic site.

It was updated for the Netflix series. So it's still maintained

Re: Future Blues – Emily's Cowboy Bebop Page (1999)

#46

Post by the_snooze »

jasoneckert wrote: post #4

Aside from the Cowboy Bebop nostalgia hit, this site is a great example of how clear, creative, and fun sites were in the late 1990s. While I struggle to identify the many reasons why I think sites looked better back then, I think being simple and content focused are two of them.

>I think being simple and content focused are two of them.

You mean you don't like newsletter subscription pop-ups? Or a virtual assistant chat window on the corner? Or auto-playing videos that follow you when you scroll down? Or a choice between "Accept all cookies" and "Learn more?"

Re: Future Blues – Emily's Cowboy Bebop Page (1999)

#47

Post by hammyhavoc »

xwdv wrote: post #26
RamblingCTO wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't feel like this site is simple, it's noisy and crowded. It doesn't aid me in finding what's provided to me. Although it looks very cool I'm quite glad we simplified designs and put UX on top of the priority list vs showing off what we can do.

Why does it have to aid you in finding anything? We’re so obsessed with efficiency and “productivity” these days. Let’s be honest, when you came to this site you weren’t looking for anything in particular. Instead the site invites you to simply look around, embrace the excitement of clicking randomly and not really knowing what you’re going to get, and not really caring either. Just be a thoughtless child, wandering…

"Whatever happens, happens."

Re: Future Blues – Emily's Cowboy Bebop Page (1999)

#48

Post by whstl »

RamblingCTO wrote: post #17
jasoneckert wrote: post #4

Aside from the Cowboy Bebop nostalgia hit, this site is a great example of how clear, creative, and fun sites were in the late 1990s. While I struggle to identify the many reasons why I think sites looked better back then, I think being simple and content focused are two of them.

I don't feel like this site is simple, it's noisy and crowded. It doesn't aid me in finding what's provided to me. Although it looks very cool I'm quite glad we simplified designs and put UX on top of the priority list vs showing off what we can do.

I agree with the sibling saying that no website owes you anything, but what you say is not even true in the first place. In general we didn't really "simplify designs", and the "good UX on top" is often negated by modern website cruft.

As an example: the modern replacement for this kind of fan-site would be a Fandom.com site, which has an interface full of cruft, focused mostly on ads and "engagement" stuff. Only a small portion reserved for actual content. Unless there is a lot of customization, list pages are often alphabetical and have a terrible design that make it very difficult to find stuff. So you need to use their terrible search that is hidden in a tiny 30x30 button on the top among other buttons.

Plenty of other examples there. For every website like Hacker News, there's dozens of forums whose design is more focused on useless ornamentation, monetization and increasing engagement through stupid tactics.

Re: Future Blues – Emily's Cowboy Bebop Page (1999)

#49

Post by justsomehnguy »

RamblingCTO wrote: post #17
jasoneckert wrote: post #4

Aside from the Cowboy Bebop nostalgia hit, this site is a great example of how clear, creative, and fun sites were in the late 1990s. While I struggle to identify the many reasons why I think sites looked better back then, I think being simple and content focused are two of them.

I don't feel like this site is simple, it's noisy and crowded. It doesn't aid me in finding what's provided to me. Although it looks very cool I'm quite glad we simplified designs and put UX on top of the priority list vs showing off what we can do.

[flagged]

Re: Future Blues – Emily's Cowboy Bebop Page (1999)

#50

Post by tm2t »

Forge36 wrote: post #45
zwaps wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, for 1999, this is an all around fantastic site.

It was updated for the Netflix series. So it's still maintained

I think he's talking about the look of the site. If so, it hasn't changed much (apart from the content) since 1999 AFAIK.
Post reply on HN