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

Why our website looks like an operating system

posthog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 504 posts

Re: Why our website looks like an operating system

#491

Post by EasyMark »

NicuCalcea wrote: post #315
keyle wrote: post #13

It's neat but it runs like a dog. I opened a couple of things and tried to move the window... I'd take a statically generated bunch of webpages over this. If you're going to make one of those multi window webpages looking thing, make it good. To note, in the past, this was a big no-no because SEO was important. You had to have good SEO for search engines to index your content efficiently and show up well ranked in se…

It took a good 20 seconds for it to fully load in Firefox on Android.

yeah, it's fine on desktop but it's dog on my iphone 12. I prefer the look and UI over most modern websites though. If was using the products from webhog I'd probably enjoy navigating around and interacting more than most sites.

Re: Why our website looks like an operating system

#492

Post by Tor3 »

cjpearson wrote: post #209
Tor3 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read an interview with a bunch of different young people. They all basically said "I just click 'yes' or 'accept' automatically". It sounded like they all believed that this was something they had to do in order to get to the content. Bad implementation of the EU law indeed, as another comment said. It fails the purpose completely and just create more problems for nearly everyone.

In many cases it is required to access the content. Courts have allowed "Consent or pay" for sites such as newspapers.

In some cases is how I would state it. It's actually very rare that you have to consent to 'accept all cookies' to read content, I've never actually seen it myself. 'Pay if you want to read more' is common, for certain types of sites.

Re: Why our website looks like an operating system

#493

Post by dspillett »

oliwarner wrote: post #437
dspillett wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> GDPR requires informed consent before collecting data. And this is a good thing, no? I certainly think so. > It's a wonder we don't have to force everyone through an interstitial consent page. If the information being tracked is truly essential to the site/app (session management and authorisation data for instance) then no consent is needed, for anything else ask before you store it, and most certainly ask before…

There's obviously a lot more real world than they can codify into laws and examples but I think if you can get consent, you should get consent. The ICO: > Private-sector or third-sector organisations will often be able to consider the ‘legitimate interests’ basis in Article 6(1)(f) if they find it hard to meet the standard for consent and no other specific basis applies. This recognises that you may have good reason…

I'm definitely not in favour of the “legitimate interest” bollocks. There is a significant difference between “absolutely necessary for running the site/app” and “we see your desire to not be tracked, but we want to track you anyway so we are going to make you click a bunch more things to opt out again, because fuck you and your silly little privacy”.

Re: Why our website looks like an operating system

#494

Post by dkersten »

I hate the new website. I know the product well enough so know what content is on their site and yet I struggle to navigate the new design. It also really doesn’t make me want to.

It also makes me scared for the product itself, it doesn’t feel made by people who understand or care about UX.

Re: Why our website looks like an operating system

#495

Post by latexr »

xp84 wrote: post #455
stevesimmons wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Always remember it is the web site owner who chose to waste your time. The more obnoxious the cookie banner, the quicker you can conclude "I didn't really need to visit your site anyway".

You and maybe others keep saying that. I assure you, we don't choose to use them. If you want to operate an ad-supported site, you need that consent. Untargeted ads are pointless and they don't make money. If you disagree, can I interest you in some brake pads for a Toyota Corolla? How about a dental chew for elderly cats? No? ok. If you operate an e-commerce site or a SaaS of some kind, you probably need to advertis…

> Untargeted ads are pointless and they don't make money. If you disagree, can I interest you in some brake pads for a Toyota Corolla? How about a dental chew for elderly cats? No? ok.

Why didn’t you instead suggest server space or a novel automation tool? You know, things relevant to people visiting HN.

That’s how untargeted ads work. You don’t simply advertise anything anywhere, you advertise relevant things to relevant communities. Advertise the break pads on a community of car enthusiasts and the cat chew on pet forums.

Re: Why our website looks like an operating system

#496

Post by em-bee »

jolmg wrote: post #486
em-bee wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really see the point of mixing tmux sessions and tmux windows. sessions let you group windows. i have a group/session for each project/purpose. one session is for all remote connections. one for my personal stuff, diary, etc. one for my hobby. one for personal dev projects, one for client work. sessions also means that i can connect to tmux from multiple terminal windows. i generally have two windows, one for…

> generally i feel that having more than half a dozen windows in a session makes the session unwieldy > which would be the same problem if each was a gui window. try to find your way around 20 gui windows. I mean, just like how you can organize tmux windows in tmux sessions, you can organize gui windows in workspaces and containers to arbitrary depths.

you can organize gui windows in workspaces and containers to arbitrary depths

which GUI offers that? i have only ever seen a single level: workspaces and windows and tabs. that's not enough.

by using tmux i get those three GUI levels and the three levels of tmux

Re: Why our website looks like an operating system

#497

Post by jolmg »

em-bee wrote: post #496
jolmg wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> generally i feel that having more than half a dozen windows in a session makes the session unwieldy > which would be the same problem if each was a gui window. try to find your way around 20 gui windows. I mean, just like how you can organize tmux windows in tmux sessions, you can organize gui windows in workspaces and containers to arbitrary depths.

you can organize gui windows in workspaces and containers to arbitrary depths which GUI offers that? i have only ever seen a single level: workspaces and windows and tabs. that's not enough. by using tmux i get those three GUI levels and the three levels of tmux

> which GUI offers that?

The ones I mentioned: i3/sway. There's probably other tiling WMs that similarly allow organizing windows into trees of containers of arbitrary depths. The containers being able to be set into 4 different modes for displaying the containers/windows within: split horizontal, split vertical, tabbed, or stacked.

Re: Why our website looks like an operating system

#498

Post by em-bee »

jolmg wrote: post #497
em-bee wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you can organize gui windows in workspaces and containers to arbitrary depths which GUI offers that? i have only ever seen a single level: workspaces and windows and tabs. that's not enough. by using tmux i get those three GUI levels and the three levels of tmux

> which GUI offers that? The ones I mentioned: i3/sway. There's probably other tiling WMs that similarly allow organizing windows into trees of containers of arbitrary depths. The containers being able to be set into 4 different modes for displaying the containers/windows within: split horizontal, split vertical, tabbed, or stacked.

very well, thanks. i'll give that a closer look.

Re: Why our website looks like an operating system

#499

Post by ironmagma »

f1shy wrote: post #320
ironmagma wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is definitely a surprising opinion to find on HN. Usually the prevailing thought is that anything that is even remotely heavy on JavaScript is bad design and therefore inherently unusable, unportable, etc. Whereas this is essentially JavaScript maximalism.

You are jumping from a discussion about UI design to one about technology and implementation.

By "you", do you mean the typical commenters on HN? Because I would agree. So many assume that because JavaScript is used, therefore there is a bad/overcomplicated UI. But any technology can be used to create crap.

Re: Why our website looks like an operating system

#500

Post by ninetyninenine »

arghwhat wrote: post #488
ninetyninenine wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don’t you read why they did that. Instead you responded with your own reasoning without countering or responding to there reasoning. I actually agree with you but the article has actual points that you didn’t bother to read or reference. Like this: Frankly for a site like this efficient use of space and multi tasking isn’t as important for a front page. A front page needs to be optimized to be in your face to und…

I read it in full before posting. Writing about something doesn't make it a better idea afterwards.

Then why did you go off on your own tangent without responding or refuting his points?
Post reply on HN