Live data from Hacker News

Impeccable Style

impeccable.style

41–50 of 69 posts

Re: Impeccable Style

#41
Let's call it "form over function."

That landing page example is devastatingly bad. You start with a page that has usage numbers, uptime, support 24/7 and a customer rating above the fold. You end up with a page that lacks all of these advantage and instead looks bland and has horrible typography and even less text contrast.

In line with that, the Dashboard looks more organized in the "after" picture, but that's because it lost most of its useful information.

Re: Impeccable Style

#42
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How will an LLM "take greater care with typography" if it can't see the page it is creating? How will it "improve" leading if you need a human to see that there's too much distance between lines or too little?

With playwright, it can see what it is creating. Unsurprisingly, it works much better if you hook it up to a browser.

There's also the Claude extension for Chrome which integrates with Claude Code.

Re: Impeccable Style

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Vocabulary is just the surface. Yes, but with LLMs, sometimes simply mentioning the right words is enough to prime the model in the direction you want to take it. If you start a prompt talking about leading and type pairings, it will take greater care with typography. You don't need to be an expert typographer to take advantage of this phenomenon.

How will an LLM "take greater care with typography" if it can't see the page it is creating? How will it "improve" leading if you need a human to see that there's too much distance between lines or too little?

I'm assuming this is in the context of an agent that can see what it's doing. And I wouldn't assume humans have a monopoly on judging leading.

Re: Impeccable Style

#44
post #2

I had to triple check which was which in the `BEFORE` and `AFTER` examples, because I can see an awful lot of things that it's made worse.

The Form UX one is hilarious. It took a streamlined form used to convert and added enormous marketing copy that's more attention grabbing than the form itself. If you look closely they ran the `/simplify` command, haha. The dashboard might even be funnier, though. And this is what the creator chose to demo .

In all three cases, it also seems to have taken the brand guidelines, ripped them up, set fire to them, and then pissed on them.

Re: Impeccable Style

#45
post #2

I had to triple check which was which in the `BEFORE` and `AFTER` examples, because I can see an awful lot of things that it's made worse.

The Form UX one is hilarious. It took a streamlined form used to convert and added enormous marketing copy that's more attention grabbing than the form itself. If you look closely they ran the `/simplify` command, haha. The dashboard might even be funnier, though. And this is what the creator chose to demo .

This is the most egregious one in my eyes, too. I've run A/B tests on a few signup forms and without fail it validates the standard practice: the lowest drop-off rate comes from removing every possible obstacle and distraction. I'd bet a few dollars (which is as much as I'll ever bet) that design update would perform worse. The tool is almost intriguing as a _reductio_ of certain design practices.

The "after" designs all replace the rather generic "SV startup with a tailwind UI" with this serif font, parchment color look. It looks very similar to Anthropic's branding. I guess it looks marginally more distinctive? Though it seems to replace one knock-off visual identity for another. But the claim is that the tool here is implementing best practices through a sophisticated "design vocabulary", and in that sense the examples strike me as manifest failures. I find the general legibility of the "before" designs to be much better.

Re: Impeccable Style

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Vocabulary is just the surface. Yes, but with LLMs, sometimes simply mentioning the right words is enough to prime the model in the direction you want to take it. If you start a prompt talking about leading and type pairings, it will take greater care with typography. You don't need to be an expert typographer to take advantage of this phenomenon.

How will an LLM "take greater care with typography" if it can't see the page it is creating? How will it "improve" leading if you need a human to see that there's too much distance between lines or too little?

Because humans have already annotated diagrams and examples of what ‘too much’ and ‘too little’ look like, and these have been incorporated into the model. It tries to reproduce the content that is associated with humans indicating that they are taking greater care, and that content has the ‘not too much / not too little’ judgement already baked into it.

Re: Impeccable Style

#47
post #32

The "Before" examples look infinitely better than the "After" examples. Tells you all you need to know. Wouldn't be at all surprised if this whole thing was a ridiculous joke or a satirical commentary on pretentious design.

Define “better”. Some people actually prefer to wake up and make toast and eggs and coffee in their own kitchen, instead of just buying affordable, professionally barista-assembled grab-and-go from the tone-balanced local Starbucks on the way to work. It’s a deviant preference, really.

Re: Impeccable Style

#48

From the authors website: Renaissance Geek (noun) A person who moves fluidly between art, technology, narrative, and systems — guided by curiosity instead of specialization. With AI as their amplifier, this breadth makes them dangerous enough to build the future rather than be shaped by it.

And I thought that was an adverb. I’ve been making an idiot out of myself.

Re: Impeccable Style

#50

"Great design prompts require design vocabulary. Most people don't have it." Vocabulary is just the surface. Beneath it is an understanding of how to achieve your goals with design. How to make things that are easy to use, accessible, that create a certain impression. Does this website (presumably made with the help of these AI tools) show this kind of understanding of design? Not really. It's chaotic, the text is of…

> Does this website (presumably made with the help of these AI tools) show this kind of understanding of design? Not really. It's chaotic, the text is often hard to read and there is a ton of fluff, both in terms of visuals and copy.

I agree. I tried figuring it out for 1-2 minutes, and then closed the tab.

Post reply on HN