51–60 of 136 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup, it's a popular template because it looks good and works very reliably.
The page concludes “Honestly this template does look really nice, though.” I’m not really sure what the author’s point is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, truly utilitarian websites look and function like this: https://smxi.org/docs/inxi.htm The template in the article is exact opposite. It conveys bloat, unoriginality and impedes efficient communication of information.
Yeah but outside of HN, that is probably considered dated/ugly.
Shouldn't there be a popup to subscribe to a newsletter before scrolling 10% of the content?
This is amusing as a developer, but there's a reason why Bootstrap is still a thing. It works. And I don't even really like it, to be quite honest. Yet in terms of what it's designed to do, it succeeds. The public doesn't know what Bootstrap is and, with a couple tweaks to the colors and border radii, they won't even notice that they're on a site that's nearly identical to a millon+ other sites.
Me: "Sure, here, allow me to spend 5 weeks, 40 hours a week, developing a custom website for you. Wait, no, here is your cookie cutter website that I slapped together in 30 minutes. We good?"
Client: "No. I read this article that was called "HEY LOOK, IT'S EVERY BOOTSTRAP WEBSITE EVER" so I want more than a cookie cutter template. Please spend 5 weeks, 40 hours a week, and give me a fantastic website for $399."
Me: "OK. Sounds reasonable after all."
This is amusing as a developer, but there's a reason why Bootstrap is still a thing. It works. And I don't even really like it, to be quite honest. Yet in terms of what it's designed to do, it succeeds. The public doesn't know what Bootstrap is and, with a couple tweaks to the colors and border radii, they won't even notice that they're on a site that's nearly identical to a millon+ other sites.
I go to a bootstrap site and I know what to do. Familiarity is a feature.