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

171–180 of 211 posts

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#171

Post by jrm4 »

renewiltord wrote: post #151
jrm4 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can use a userstyle on the webpage. It works. It's quite straightforward actually.

On this page, sure. On all pages, not so much.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#172

Post by 5350-uiop-1130 »

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,…

same thing for all these apps/websites with dark mode only.

spotify, steam, epic and many more.

big diff between profit/trend driven design and philosophical/practical design.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#173

Post by iudqnolq »

It's disgusting for them to say their site should be fine for a healthy individual and that's enough. Not everyone is healthy! And if you're unhealthy and visit a doctor you often won't be instantly cured.

> Since admitting that you didn't realise the theme selector was there would make you look silly in front of people you don't even know

The theme selector is a link in the footer. It's probably the most subtle thing on the entire page. And it's not like they're using the rest of their real estate efficiently. I think it's fair to infer they prefer people don't realize they can change the theme until they've been annoyed.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#174

Post by 3np »

iudqnolq wrote: post #173

It's disgusting for them to say their site should be fine for a healthy individual and that's enough. Not everyone is healthy! And if you're unhealthy and visit a doctor you often won't be instantly cured. > Since admitting that you didn't realise the theme selector was there would make you look silly in front of people you don't even know The theme selector is a link in the footer. It's probably the most subtle thin…

From the top of the front page, the first section leads to half a screenful informing you to choose a theme. It's the first and most prominent showed to new visitors, promoted on top of the front page.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#175

Post by rchaud »

midenginedcoupe wrote: post #53

Reminds me of Lings Cars: https://www.lingscars.com/ Not a niche or hobbyist website, but a genuine car leasing company. Who's owner deliberately styled the site like this to act as a differentiator in a crowded market. It's certainly unique, I'll give them that.

What's most shocking about this site is that they added a mobile layout in 2022. Before it was desktop-only.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#176

Post by falcolas »

blowski wrote: post #150
falcolas wrote: post #143

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? 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.

The Americans with Disabilities Act.

From ada.gov:

> The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in everyday activities.

And specific to web sites:

https://www.ada.gov/resources/web-guidance/

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#177

Post by rektide »

JohnFen wrote: post #146

Wow, the people running that website are pissed .

The whole website is playful as fuck.

This 100% felt like more playful teasing. At the expense of those who refuse to have a good time, who can't roll with it, who let themselves be tattered by tiny things.

It just going on and on and on just keeps highlighting how in depth & considerate & thoughtful they really are & keeps bringing out the joke more, about how hilarious & fun it is & how great it is to have such an amusing conversation piece.

This page is their moment of glory, a secret shrine to how awesome they are. The hurf-burf "this isn't 90's web design!" being way over precise & technical about the matter was a hilarious example of them just being here to have fun & be smart about shit.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#178

Post by ogurechny »

MavisBacon wrote: post #144
ogurechny wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

The users will never be knowledgeable if no one is teaching them anything. They also won't make adjustments if the ability to adjust itself is removed because It's Better This Way™.

I am aware that the site is original for the sake of originality (slanted divs look awful on my system, too). However, the advice to stop and find out what is wrong instead of just keep doing what everyone is doing is pretty sane.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#179

Post by renewiltord »

jrm4 wrote: post #171
renewiltord wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can use a userstyle on the webpage. It works. It's quite straightforward actually.

On this page, sure. On all pages, not so much.

No, explicitly on every page. It's a user agent level choice.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#180

Post by JohnFen »

rektide wrote: post #177
JohnFen wrote: post #146

Wow, the people running that website are pissed .

The whole website is playful as fuck. This 100% felt like more playful teasing. At the expense of those who refuse to have a good time, who can't roll with it, who let themselves be tattered by tiny things. It just going on and on and on just keeps highlighting how in depth & considerate & thoughtful they really are & keeps bringing out the joke more, about how hilarious & fun it is & how great it is to have such an…

I guess that's the problem with extreme snark. It's very culturally dependent and doesn't always translate well when taken out of the social setting that it grew in.

That page doesn't read to me as playful or fun, it reads to me as angry and bitter. Although I understand (now) that's not what they were going for, I can't make my brain read it any other way.

Post reply on HN