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

191–200 of 211 posts

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#191

Post by rektide »

JohnFen wrote: post #180
rektide wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The whole experience drives a huge wedge into folks, as we see from the very strong breakdown of very negative vs very positive. The site's whole premise comes at the expense of severely agitating some people. Doubling down seems like the obvious move. I don't there's a real possibility of useful dialog or outreach with the discontent; making oveure's to a non-addressable market just doesn't make sense.

And it's not like they have particularly bad points either. They're over the top but basically counter-roasting far more over the top griping, for the most part. It's all pretty well constructed. I don't think they cause any additional or excess damage with this.

I don't always think shiboleths or in-comments are wise, but here in particular I think it adds greatly. It's almost entirely just people's disposition & response we see for how folks perceive this, and not at all cultural or information based. The context in question is mostly the reader themselves. This continues to parlay the grand-joke about emotions & people well, to me.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#192

Post by falcolas »

blowski wrote: post #187
falcolas wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where is the discrimination here? Restating the post I originally responded to: > 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? The key words from the comment are: "cannot look at it" For comparison, some other similar discriminatory phrases from history: "cannot swim in…

So because they cannot look at the design, that's discrimination, even if they _are_ able to access the content itself? Why don't you take legal action against them?

> even if they _are_ able to access the content itself?

Just as a non-wheelchair accessible store is an example of discrimination, even if someone in a wheelchair could conceivably gain access to it by dragging themselves up the steps with their arms.

> Why don't you take legal action against them?

Because I'd honestly rather they do the right thing for the right reasons. Lawsuits should be a means of last resort.

And honestly, I'm not rich enough to fund a legal campaign. I'll leave that to someone with more money than I.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#193

Post by hoosieree »

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.

The way a lot of people experience "the web" is not primarily text, but instead compressed screenshots of text. And screenshots of screenshots, ad infinitum.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#194

Post by JohnFen »

rektide wrote: post #191
JohnFen wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The whole experience drives a huge wedge into folks, as we see from the very strong breakdown of very negative vs very positive. The site's whole premise comes at the expense of severely agitating some people. Doubling down seems like the obvious move. I don't there's a real possibility of useful dialog or outreach with the discontent; making oveure's to a non-addressable market just doesn't make sense. And it's not…

Well, as I said in another comment, I actually like that their website design pushes back against the huge beige conformity that constitutes most of the web. So I'm inclined to feel fondly for the company as a result.

I will admit, though, that that particular page put me off. It's just so hostile that it clearly says that I'm not welcome there even though I do agree with the substance of what they're saying. So I haven't looked at the rest of the site, and I don't even know what the site or the company is about.

I'm sure that they couldn't care less about me, though, and rightfully so.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#195

Post by blowski »

falcolas wrote: post #192
blowski wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So because they cannot look at the design, that's discrimination, even if they _are_ able to access the content itself? Why don't you take legal action against them?

> even if they _are_ able to access the content itself? Just as a non-wheelchair accessible store is an example of discrimination, even if someone in a wheelchair could conceivably gain access to it by dragging themselves up the steps with their arms. > Why don't you take legal action against them? Because I'd honestly rather they do the right thing for the right reasons. Lawsuits should be a means of last resort. An…

If the user can use reasonable measures (such as different settings, or an alternative browser) to access the content, that's not at all the same as asking a wheelchair user to drag themselves up the stairs.

There is absolutely no legal requirement to either spend a fortune on designers, or reduce your website to some boring text-only mush, in the name of "accessibility". The website in question is accessible via a screen-reader, but even if it wasn't, they are not in a market where broad accessibility would be considered a legal requirement. If that were the case, half the websites on the internet would be taken offline.

If you did take this to court, you would lose.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#196

Post by lenkite »

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…

Lol, this is the first website in a long while that made me feel sick after scrolling for a while. I need to show this to the folks in office and see who pukes or wipes their head.

Looks like we need to "seek professional medical advice"

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#197

Post by JohnFen »

capableweb wrote: post #32
weird-eye-issue wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you aware of what the "A" in AI and the "M" in ML stand for?

No, I work in a field without having zero idea what the most basic terminology actually means. Are you aware what "organic" means? Have some imagination. We can call it OI and OL to make it a bit easier if you want.

> Are you aware what "organic" means?

I am, but I always get an argument when I tell certain people that "all food is organic", despite the fact that's technically correct.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#198

Post by JohnFen »

rolph wrote: post #188

in many cases, i turn off the page style. this is one of them. if i really feel i need the info and de-styling wont work, then i read the source. if to no avail, i go elsewhere.

> i read the source.

You mean I'm not the only one who does this?? I think I end up doing that on about 25% of the websites I hit.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#200

Post by JohnFen »

toomanyrichies wrote: post #166
blowski wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which law? Show me.

They may be referring to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act [1], which: > ...requires federal agencies and any institution that receives federal funding to make electronic technology and information equally accessible for individuals with disabilities. This means that an organization's website must have all features just as accessible for individuals with disabilities as these features are for individuals without…

> federal agencies and any institution that receives federal funding

I don't think that website is either a US federal agency or receives any US federal funding.

Post reply on HN