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

71–80 of 211 posts

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#71

Post by bombcar »

pas wrote: post #56
petercooper wrote: post #4

That's it, I've completed the Internet. This is my new favorite page. The aesthete in me may bristle, but the pragmatist agrees. There are many ergonomic and UX concerns to consider when designing things, but I think they make their case very well and I didn't find it a problem to read at all.

the background distracts too much, but otherwise it's pretty readable.

There are various themes and it works well on mobile and doesn’t look like every single other website out there today, so I count it as a win.

It’s kind of how so many LaTeX documents look the same because nobody bothers to design anything; the inverse problem from Word where things are too easy to change.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#72

Post by blowski »

zagrebian wrote: post #69
blowski wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No. They are sarcastically saying that people making those complaints are doing so figuratively, not literally. Find one person who has genuinely suffered a surprise headache after looking at this site and you’ll have a stronger argument.

Accessibility doesn’t mean everything should be available to everybody at all times. That would be universal direct accessibility, which is impossible. Those without the internet or computer access cannot use a grocery website, but the grocery store is still open, and thus the groceries are still indirectly accessible. Providing an elevator as well as stairs means the 2nd floor is universally accessible, even though some cannot use the stairs.

Here, the content is provided by default with an unusual design. That design is part of their brand experience, which is why it has been posted. Some people cannot view through that experience, but they can still reasonably access the content using assistive technology. Thus the website is indirectly accessible.

Remove the design and you make the experience inaccessible to me. These are trade offs, not absolutes.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#73

Post by ryandrake »

Call me old fashioned, but web sites that overdo the CSS and assert a strong design opinion just kind of annoy me now.

I wish we could go back to a WWW where the browser was the user agent and the user was the authority on text size, font face, colors and so on. Browsers have devolved from applications allowing users to browse hyperTEXT into these free-for-all canvases for web designers’ creativity.

Technically this should be solvable by using the browser’s “no styles” feature, but many web sites seem to be careless with the structure of their HTML such that “no styles” isn’t even readable.

I know this ship has sailed and my opinion is a fart in the wind at this point, but the web could have turned into a nice, fast, consistent way to publish structured and linked TEXT, but instead we got this “Remote Photoshop for Web Designers.”

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#74

Post by msoad »

catapart wrote: post #70

Design 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'. Wh…

Let me out-snob you and say those are called elements not tags.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#75

Post by mschuster91 »

whostolemyhat wrote: post #58
zagrebian wrote: post #49

Earlier 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.

The question is, can it be considered accessible under legal standards (i.e. US ADA or the EU EEA, which is slated to come into final effect in 2025)?

In general, courts tend to follow not just the letter of the law but also the intent, so it's better to go on the safer side.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#76

Post by bombcar »

lelanthran wrote: post #37
capableweb wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> as someone could surely argue our brains are just AI and/or ML but in organic form. Our brains are artificial intelligence? Humans are machine learning? I mean, c'mon. If humans are artificial, then what do you call real? If humans are machines, then what on earth isn't?

I could see an argument that a test tube baby might be something like a human created by artifice.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#77

Post by kevincox »

blowski wrote: post #46
have_faith wrote: post #14

The only thing the design needs is a max width on the paragraphs for large screens.

I suspect they would reply with "resize your browser window".

This is shockingly common but do these people resize their window for every site they visit? Or they keep the window narrow and then sites with side navigation need to put it somewhere else?

Having a large window should be telling the site "you have this space, make the best of it". Maybe it would be nice to have a built-in CSS property for "desired reading text width" but I think most people can pick a number and it is generally good for most readers.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#78

Post by catapart »

msoad wrote: post #74
catapart wrote: post #70

Design 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'. Wh…

Let me out-snob you and say those are called elements not tags.

I don't know what I said that was snobby? I replied to their article based on the points they made in said article.

That aside, yes, I was wrong to use it like "[...] in the `article` tag."; well spotted.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#79

Post by manuelmoreale »

ryandrake wrote: post #73

Call me old fashioned, but web sites that overdo the CSS and assert a strong design opinion just kind of annoy me now. I wish we could go back to a WWW where the browser was the user agent and the user was the authority on text size, font face, colors and so on. Browsers have devolved from applications allowing users to browse hyperTEXT into these free-for-all canvases for web designers’ creativity. Technically this…

I'd argue there's a good middle ground to be found between the two extremes. We should style without overstyle.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#80

Post by weird-eye-issue »

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.

If you called something OI and OL then you wouldn't be referring to AI and ML. They would be different things. It's clearly big brain time for you...
Post reply on HN