Live data from Hacker News

Redesigning GitHub Repository Page

tonsky.me

91–100 of 315 posts

Re: Redesigning GitHub Repository Page

#91
oof, the curmudgeon is strong in the comments here and I think some perspective is required.

1) no one is actually implementing these changes; this is just a design exercise from someone who has no connection or influence with Github other than I presume being someone who uses it. My reading of this design work up is that it was just a fun exercise for someone with design skills; design kata if you will.

2) as a programmer who has occasionally tried my hand at a little bit of design; to my mind the design process is somewhere between fricking hard and near impossible and I appreciated the article taking me through his thinking and the incremental changes along the way. I may not like or agree with all of his choices but I really liked the insight into the process.

Obviously it's fine to not like the final design he ended up with, but given the above context I think the level of harrumphing discontent of some comments is not really warranted.

Re: Redesigning GitHub Repository Page

#92
I was so on board with change progression until the final mock - floating, borderless sections on a sea of white is profane.

Big fan of the screenshot under problem 10 however and would love to see Github implement some of the improvements on vertical space usage.

Re: Redesigning GitHub Repository Page

#93
I really disagree with your top 3 problems, the rest is still not very convincing.

1. Nested tabs -> it's a better way to organize when you have too much content that should be grouped under the same tab. Nested tabs are found in lost of well-organized designs. I am a programmer and I do like hierarchies. I am uncertain about your statement of people normally don't like hierarchies. Maybe nested tabs don't suit your design, but I don't think it's a problem.

2. Redundant icons -> Of course when you stack them in the "intended images" with lack of spacing like that, they would cloud our views and harder to see. If you lay them out with good spacing, horizontally, they're much nicer to see. If you're using it often enough, you would remember the icons. I think you should keep the icons, push the non-regular items to a more option icon like ellipsis.

3. "Vanity counters" -> they're designed with different purposes. Out of the 3, I only care about Star and Fork. They're very good metrics and also good pride badges for public repos.

I do see there're good improvements compared to the old design like the file list, getting rid off the redundant commit description next to it, the stats.

Re: Redesigning GitHub Repository Page

#95

Github is a utility, a developer facing utility, not a consumer beauty product. As it works already, I would argue it doesn't need redesign, not many people are complaining its look.

100% this. Designers nowadays have trouble understanding the concept of utilitarian design. Nobody chooses a productivity tool for its looks. They choose it for its ability to solve a problem. The better it’s solving the problem the more appealing it becomes to an audience of potential users.

Aesthetics serve a purpose and can increase satisfaction, as well as the performance of a design, but they will never supersede functionality in a product like GitHub.

Re: Redesigning GitHub Repository Page

#96
The article started off with making some good points, but then seeing the suggestions applied made me dislike the result.

The single-navigation element looks cluttered, it's easier now with the hierarchy. The 'vanity counters' serve a purpose. Stars tells you people like it, forks tells you people might wish to change something. They are both valuable.

And the final result just looked horrible in my opinion. Design guides and standards for the 'general population' might not work in a setting where most users are 'power users'. I really wouldn't like it if Github took lessons from this blog.

And as a side-note, the fact that github's look hasn't changed much over the years is a _good_ thing. Look at hackernews - stay with a proven design.

Re: Redesigning GitHub Repository Page

#99

First half of the article that redesigns the navigation is actually pretty good. It got me hooked and i find it valuable. When they started touching the content, I got a lot more hesitant. 1. I can't articulate why , but honestly it's extremely useful to see the last commit message on each file. It gives me a sense of which files have changed and if my changes are still the latest ones. It's not foolproof, but it doe…

Yeah, I was totally with the author for steps 1-7, but I have problems with the last four steps. Personally, I think step 9 shows exactly where the author is a bit out of touch. He seems to see GitHub as a sort of code social media site where statistics about the repository are just as valuable as the code itself. In some cases (especially open source), I can see that being kind of true, but I think GitHub gets far m…

I think, even as an internal collaboration tool, the faces of who has been touching a repo recently are very valuable. Who do I go to for help, or to get a PR approved, or to request a new feature?

Re: Redesigning GitHub Repository Page

#100
The redesign seems to be geared toward beginners who are too intimidated to contribute to and explore large open source projects. I spend far more time in GH exploring my team's code bases, reviewing code, writing PRs and issues... and GH's layout is perfect for that.

I honestly believe GitHub is one of the best developer tools ever made. It's a joy to use and I have a major appreciation for their conservative approach to design refreshing.

Post reply on HN