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

Tell HN: Thank you for not redesigning Hacker News

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 398 posts

Re: Tell HN: Thank you for not redesigning Hacker News

#121

Post by diminoten »

level09 wrote: post #113

You can redesign the website using modern technology and still make it insanely fast, probably even faster than its current state.

This, and you can get a much better mobile experience to boot, not to mention fixing dozens of errors that crop up with prolonged use of this site.

Literally to post this comment, I got a, "We cannot serve requests that quickly please try again in a moment" message. Completely unnecessary in 2019, given how simple this site (as a concept) is.

"I hate change" <- basically the summary of this submission, and kind of sad.

Re: Tell HN: Thank you for not redesigning Hacker News

#122

Post by deftturtle »

dmarlow wrote: post #101

I love hearing stories about people choosing to forego large frontend frameworks, or even not using JS altogether. Is there a community or name for this? If not, I'm going to call it #neverscript. I find the web works far better, more often, for me when SPAs and JS aren't used. There's something about minimalistic sites that's very appealing to me. I know it doesn't work for all sites, but a lot of the web could be i…

I use barba.js to make my site load faster, but at the initial expense of a JavaScript payload to enable the XHR page delivery. It would be cool if browsers offered an experimental flag, allowing the page to be fetched with XHR by default when possible. Then static sites could be even faster, no Javascript download required, because of a little browser magic

Re: Tell HN: Thank you for not redesigning Hacker News

#123

Post by DC-3 »

thrwwyw3489 wrote: post #118
_ps6d wrote: post #57

HN is lightweight in some ways, but also quite bad in others. For example, every single time you vote on anything, the site sends back a 302 redirect and then a copy of the entire page's HTML in response. This means that every vote results in a response that's usually around 10KB gzipped. As of right now, for me, voting on any comment in this thread currently causes a 14KB response and takes about 1.3 seconds to fini…

>This means that every vote results in a response that's usually around 10KB gzipped. Dude, the time to be angry is if your sentence were: "This means that every vote results in a response that's usually around 10MB gzipped." [megabytes, not kilobytes] And: "As of right now, for me, voting on any comment in this thread currently causes a 14MB response and takes about 130 seconds to finish." Because that's the territo…

Since he's probably too modest to mention it himself, the user you're replying to is the founder of the news aggregator and forum site Tildes [1] which is pretty much the gold standard of modern forum site design imho. If anyone has the right to make this comment it's him.

[1] https://tildes.net

Re: Tell HN: Thank you for not redesigning Hacker News

#124

Post by k__ »

jon889 wrote: post #87
k__ wrote: post #80

While I like the light-weight design, I would prefer some bigger hit-boxes for the links on mobile. Also, the vote-buttons are very tiny. And I would prefer if "hiding" would be near the voting buttons.

You can zoom in to hit them. Personally I much prefer being able to see a tonne more content on the screen, then zooming in to interact with it. Then having a mobile site in which you see like 1 post per screen and the buttons are large.

I like the middle way.

See a few posts less but don't have to fiddle around with buttons.

Re: Tell HN: Thank you for not redesigning Hacker News

#125

Post by 18pfsmt »

thrwwyw3489 wrote: post #118
_ps6d wrote: post #57

HN is lightweight in some ways, but also quite bad in others. For example, every single time you vote on anything, the site sends back a 302 redirect and then a copy of the entire page's HTML in response. This means that every vote results in a response that's usually around 10KB gzipped. As of right now, for me, voting on any comment in this thread currently causes a 14KB response and takes about 1.3 seconds to fini…

>This means that every vote results in a response that's usually around 10KB gzipped. Dude, the time to be angry is if your sentence were: "This means that every vote results in a response that's usually around 10MB gzipped." [megabytes, not kilobytes] And: "As of right now, for me, voting on any comment in this thread currently causes a 14MB response and takes about 130 seconds to finish." Because that's the territo…

> It should use 5-50 megabytes of data per page load.

Mandatory min of 5MB vs. current 10KB?

I'm pretty sure I'm missing the logic here. I sometimes rely on a satellite connection in my access, and I don't hold HN responsible for that fact.

I do agree that no anger is merited (nor sane).

Re: Tell HN: Thank you for not redesigning Hacker News

#126

Post by raverbashing »

_ps6d wrote: post #57

HN is lightweight in some ways, but also quite bad in others. For example, every single time you vote on anything, the site sends back a 302 redirect and then a copy of the entire page's HTML in response. This means that every vote results in a response that's usually around 10KB gzipped. As of right now, for me, voting on any comment in this thread currently causes a 14KB response and takes about 1.3 seconds to fini…

I'm going to agree and say there are minor usability/functionality quirks like these

For example, adding a story to favourites shouldn't redirect it back to the main page

At the same time there were a couple of minor improvements "recently", like the undo feature for votes which were a bit of high-impact low hanging fruit.

Apart from that I'm just happy I can customize the level of orangeness on the top bar to a lighter shade

Re: Tell HN: Thank you for not redesigning Hacker News

#127

Post by mikewhy »

18pfsmt wrote: post #125
thrwwyw3489 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This means that every vote results in a response that's usually around 10KB gzipped. Dude, the time to be angry is if your sentence were: "This means that every vote results in a response that's usually around 10MB gzipped." [megabytes, not kilobytes] And: "As of right now, for me, voting on any comment in this thread currently causes a 14MB response and takes about 130 seconds to finish." Because that's the territo…

> It should use 5-50 megabytes of data per page load. Mandatory min of 5MB vs. current 10KB? I'm pretty sure I'm missing the logic here. I sometimes rely on a satellite connection in my access, and I don't hold HN responsible for that fact. I do agree that no anger is merited (nor sane).

The person you're replying to is most likely making a low-effort troll post on how large webapps tend to be now. Keep in mind that most of what's downloaded would be cached, and the response from an up / down vote would be considerably smaller than 10KB.

Re: Tell HN: Thank you for not redesigning Hacker News

#128

Post by peruvian »

turrini wrote: post #24

There should be an extension that automatically redirects common websites to their lite versions. reddit.com -> old.reddit.com facebook.com -> mbasic.facebook.com cnn.com -> lite.cnn.com npr.org -> text.npr.org twitter.com -> twitter.com (with JS disabled) gmail.com -> gmail.com (HTML version)

Funny thing is that I'm pretty sure CNN Lite is a server-rendered React app, or was at some point.

Re: Tell HN: Thank you for not redesigning Hacker News

#129

Post by zaroth »

scarface74 wrote: post #120
zaroth wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a feature IMO -- HN could even make them even smaller. It should take conscious effort to vote, and the small target size mentally reinforces this model; that it's not supposed to be the most common action. EDIT: See, clearly the vote targets simply aren't small enough !

I’ve also down voted comments by mistake...

They have added an undown link a while back.
Post reply on HN