I think the one thing that strains the eyes a bit about the layout (besides people just using it as a metaphor for saying they don't like it) is that a lot of their themes use text shadow on all of the text, which makes it look slightly blurry, which in turn makes your eyes strain trying to focus on it.
Replying to comments about our web page design
61–70 of 211 posts
Re: Replying to comments about our web page design
#62Hacker News should hire them for a refresh.
Re: Replying to comments about our web page design
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. There’s no room for inaccessible websites. You don’t have to trade off anything. You can have both artistic expression and accessibility at the same time. For example, the website can make sure that it’s compatible with the browsers’ reader views. Then users can switch to reader view to read the text in simple black and white.
It is accessible - it matches standards and is available in text-only browsers.
I disagree. A website that induces eyestrain and headaches in some people is not fully accessible, unless the user has an easy way to switch to a simpler design. Browsers have reader modes, but the website in question is not compatible with them.
Re: Replying to comments about our web page design
#64Earlier 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? Should Picasso not have bothered painting since some people are blind? Should Tolstoy not have written War and Peace because some people do not have the reading level to cope with such a complex book? Should Maria Callas not ha…
A website can be designed so that it adapts to the user’s needs. For example, there exist CSS media features that allow websites to honor the user’s preferences for color scheme, reduced motion, and increased contrast, among others. https://w3c.github.io/csswg-drafts/mediaqueries-5/#mf-user-p... The website can both have a shrill design and be accessible at the same time.
Can you give me a concrete example of somebody who is unable to access the content, albeit using Lynx or with settings changes to Firefox?
Re: Replying to comments about our web page design
#65> You agree not to use the content to train AI systems or machine learning systems. https://research.exoticsilicon.com/terms First I’ve seen that.
Seems unlikely to be enforceable as "overly expansive", as someone could surely argue our brains are just AI and/or ML but in organic form. Does that mean I'm not allowed to learn from the website?
>someone could surely argue
No, they could not. Even if they did, those things are just different. It won't change what AI/ML is, a bunch of bytes in memory and on a disk. Just making a bunch of reaching comparisons, won't absolve AI/ML of responsibility.
Re: Replying to comments about our web page design
#66This site eats about 50% CPU on Firefox (on an older laptop) for every page that is open at the same time, and it continues to eat 50% after closing all pages. It doesn't use JavaScript and no visible CSS animations, so what is it? Apparently, the favicon! Which, as explained on the linked page, "is SVG, (with S.M.I.L. animation)". Since the favicon is still listed on the list of favourites on the browser start page, it continues to eat CPU... until clearing the browser history.
Re: Replying to comments about our web page design
#67Beautiful! Finally somebody taking the best of old and new and the result is something different!
Re: Replying to comments about our web page design
#68This site eats about 50% CPU on Firefox (on an older laptop) for every page that is open at the same time, and it continues to eat 50% after closing all pages. It doesn't use JavaScript and no visible CSS animations, so what is it? Apparently, the favicon! Which, as explained on the linked page, "is SVG, (with S.M.I.L. animation)". Since the favicon is still listed on the list of favourites on the browser start page,…
"Ask Firefox developers"
Re: Replying to comments about our web page design
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
A website can be designed so that it adapts to the user’s needs. For example, there exist CSS media features that allow websites to honor the user’s preferences for color scheme, reduced motion, and increased contrast, among others. https://w3c.github.io/csswg-drafts/mediaqueries-5/#mf-user-p... The website can both have a shrill design and be accessible at the same time.
Can you give me a concrete example of somebody who is unable to access the content, albeit using Lynx or with settings changes to Firefox?
(Copy-pasted from other comment:) The author of that website claims that they’ve seen multiple comments that complain about headaches and eyestrain. This is the first item in the FAQ, which suggests that it’s one of the most common complaints.
Re: Replying to comments about our web page design
#70Design proof that being "unique" doesn't mean "good".
I'm certainly glad they like what they've built. But it breaks a lot of design concepts that help with UX (some in micro ways that aren't really noticeable without the aggregate effect). The "max character width" is a really valuable thing for "readability". But why bother with learning design when you're using all of the TECHNICAL specs 'exactly as specified'. Why bother with design responsibility when you're already absolving yourself of technical responsibility ('it should not be our job to work around bad tech...').
Of course, the most galling thing is that they're not actually using the spec, as it is specified. Using `section` tags everywhere is inappropriate. They are meant to break up content in the `article` tag.
But, okay, whatever; you're going to cling to the spec but still ignore the parts of it you don't like. Fine. Like they said, it's not causing screen-reader issues, so who cares, right? Except that they ALSO don't use the `header` tag within those sections to denote what is clearly a header. Not a "heading" (h1-6, used for breaking up paragraphs in articles), maybe, since it's not in an article and that can cause funky screen-reader performance, but there's no reason to NOT use a `header` tag. This use case is literally what it was made for; giving a generic header that you can style and make accessible on your own. So why use a `section` tag erroneously, but then eschew using the `header` tag for the exact purpose you need? (why use it? screen readers/accessibility)
Nothing in this seems like "well-considered design". Rather it seems like "good enough, and how I like it." Which is a perfectly wonderful way to design and run a website! It's just kind of shitty to then go write an entire article telling anyone who misunderstands your uniqueness for a different flavor of uniqueness that you are actually doing everything exactly right and that anyone who dislikes your site should take their "problems" elsewhere. A fine enough attitude, if you're in to that kind of gatekeeping, but I've never found it compelling or endearing.