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

Replying to comments about our web page design

research.exoticsilicon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 211 posts

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#141

Post by jrm4 »

MavisBacon wrote: post #122

Per original link >>Arghhhh! Your pages give me a headache, and/or eyestrain. >Stop using the site immediately and consult a qualified ophthalmologist. Seriously, no static display on a modern and correctly adjusted VDU such as a computer monitor or phone screen should ever be inducing headaches or eyestrain in a healthy individual when properly used for reasonable time periods, and with sufficient breaks. If it is,…

I find it wildly ridiculous that we've more or less abandoned the practically simple idea of "the web is text, so just let people render the text how they want in their browsers."

Yet another reminder of the overblown nature of UX/UI in general. Given the current push for accessibility, seems like "make the text accessible" should be the goal above all else.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#142

Post by ogurechny »

MavisBacon wrote: post #122

Per original link >>Arghhhh! Your pages give me a headache, and/or eyestrain. >Stop using the site immediately and consult a qualified ophthalmologist. Seriously, no static display on a modern and correctly adjusted VDU such as a computer monitor or phone screen should ever be inducing headaches or eyestrain in a healthy individual when properly used for reasonable time periods, and with sufficient breaks. If it is,…

Actually, a site that is structured well enough to be usable in text mode browsers is already more accessible to all users than most of the “beautifully” designed examples.

There's a different kind of incapacity involved: incapacity to control your device and software to have them suit your needs. The reply assumes that user has no other option except to drool and stare at what website author chose.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#143

Post by falcolas »

blowski wrote: post #54
zagrebian wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does a person who can’t read the text because of their health issues know that it’s tongue in cheek?

Should the vast majority of the world who do not have those health issues be deprived of its glory, because there is a minority who - very sadly and unfortunately for them - cannot look at it? Should Picasso not have bothered painting since some people are blind? Should Tolstoy not have written War and Peace because some people do not have the reading level to cope with such a complex book? Should Maria Callas not ha…

> Should the vast majority of the world who do not have those health issues be deprived of its glory, because there is a minority who - very sadly and unfortunately for them - cannot look at it?

FWIW, the law says yes. And the law is right, IMO: we should not deprive a minority of their rights just because the majority is fine with the status quo.

And everyone will become disabled if they don't die young. Eyesight in particular is pretty much guaranteed to decline with age.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#144

Post by MavisBacon »

ogurechny wrote: post #142
MavisBacon wrote: post #122

Per original link >>Arghhhh! Your pages give me a headache, and/or eyestrain. >Stop using the site immediately and consult a qualified ophthalmologist. Seriously, no static display on a modern and correctly adjusted VDU such as a computer monitor or phone screen should ever be inducing headaches or eyestrain in a healthy individual when properly used for reasonable time periods, and with sufficient breaks. If it is,…

Actually, a site that is structured well enough to be usable in text mode browsers is already more accessible to all users than most of the “beautifully” designed examples. There's a different kind of incapacity involved: incapacity to control your device and software to have them suit your needs. The reply assumes that user has no other option except to drool and stare at what website author chose.

this generally isn't how designing with cognitive or neurological disabilities in mind works, we don't want the user to have to make adjustments in order to use a website as this only creates more friction. Not to mention the fact that we don't assume that the user is knowledgeable on how to make those adjustments, especially with the senior population which is a large segment of the cognitively impacted population who are using the internet.

unlike with the blind or low vision population, those with cognitive and neuro issues often aren't aware of assistive tech, often aren't familiar with the accessibility settings on their devices, and sometimes aren't even aware of the disability they are dealing with and are undiagnosed.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#145

Post by tedunangst »

jrm4 wrote: post #141
MavisBacon wrote: post #122

Per original link >>Arghhhh! Your pages give me a headache, and/or eyestrain. >Stop using the site immediately and consult a qualified ophthalmologist. Seriously, no static display on a modern and correctly adjusted VDU such as a computer monitor or phone screen should ever be inducing headaches or eyestrain in a healthy individual when properly used for reasonable time periods, and with sufficient breaks. If it is,…

I find it wildly ridiculous that we've more or less abandoned the practically simple idea of "the web is text, so just let people render the text how they want in their browsers. " Yet another reminder of the overblown nature of UX/UI in general. Given the current push for accessibility, seems like "make the text accessible" should be the goal above all else.

But the text is all there? Is there some sort of DRM embedded in the html that prevents you from rendering it how you'd like?

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#147

Post by captainpiggies »

Ok, we get it, your website's design is basically bad on purpose, and it probably generates a lot of free pr exactly because it is bad and because it's novel. However, I can assure you that my eyes are perfectly fine, but your website still makes me nauseous.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#148

Post by JohnFen »

Poppys wrote: post #134
nkrisc wrote: post #99

Couldn't actually read for very long. The content scrolling over the static background image gave me motion sickness. The 1980s theme was the only one I could stand, and the 1990s theme appears to be the same as the Tropical Days theme. All the ones with the background are essentially unusable for me. It's their site, they can do whatever they want, but it's a bit silly to act like there's something wrong with anyone…

Playing Devil's advocate, if the themes are inaccessible, the user can always pick another one. Monochrome might provide the contrast ratio you want.

But why would they? It's much easier just to move on to another site.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#149

Post by doodlesdev »

bombcar wrote: post #71
pas wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the background distracts too much, but otherwise it's pretty readable.

There are various themes and it works well on mobile and doesn’t look like every single other website out there today, so I count it as a win. It’s kind of how so many LaTeX documents look the same because nobody bothers to design anything; the inverse problem from Word where things are too easy to change.

   > It’s kind of how so many LaTeX documents look the same because nobody bothers to design anything
I see that as a feature honestly.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#150

Post by blowski »

falcolas wrote: post #143
blowski wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should the vast majority of the world who do not have those health issues be deprived of its glory, because there is a minority who - very sadly and unfortunately for them - cannot look at it? Should Picasso not have bothered painting since some people are blind? Should Tolstoy not have written War and Peace because some people do not have the reading level to cope with such a complex book? Should Maria Callas not ha…

> Should the vast majority of the world who do not have those health issues be deprived of its glory, because there is a minority who - very sadly and unfortunately for them - cannot look at it? FWIW, the law says yes. And the law is right, IMO: we should not deprive a minority of their rights just because the majority is fine with the status quo. And everyone will become disabled if they don't die young. Eyesight in…

Which law? Show me.
Post reply on HN