7 ms·

If borrowing the term from Architecture, then a brutalist website should be one that (only) uses the 'raw' (original) elements of design and functionality (cann

If borrowing the term from Architecture, then a brutalist website should be one that (only) uses the 'raw' (original) elements of design and functionality (cannot separate both in web design), namely: page layout + font face + color palette for the graphic design component, and links + media for the functional (hypermedia) component. As such, I do not see how modernizing the style through functional paradigms, like a flat design UI, breaks the original canon. However, we could argue that anything else, like flashy add-ons such as element transitions, drop-downs, fades, etc, do break the canon and are just a response to trends, just like a bunch of useless zippers and pockets do not add functional value to a trendy jacket but definitely help sell it. Efficient use of resources and fast loading is a entire different subject. Enter the engineer, leave the architect. It is absolutely possible to program any design paradigm to perform fast and efficiently.

platz 11y ago
I wonder what the website equivalent of concrete is. "There is often an emphasis on graphically expressing in the external elevations and in the whole-site architectural plan the main functions and people-flows of the buildings." This might suggest ways to express navigation that are explicit and not hidden
- ktRolster 11y ago
  I'm tempted to reply that a brutalist website would be one that keeps decoration to a minimum, but.....that wouldn't fit, because (for example) the Geisel Library has plenty of decoration, it's just in concrete and glass. Maybe a brutalist HTML page would have the tags embedded, kind of like the WordPerfect codes.
  - petercooper 11y ago
    A bit like the Hotmetal editor from 90s? :-) http://literacy.kent.edu/Midwest/Graphics/hotmetal.jpg http://literacy.kent.edu/Midwest/Graphics/hotmetal.jpg
- USAnum1 11y ago
  Another thing I thought of was using the <table> tag for layout. It's austere, as well as an anti-pattern when used exclusively. Despite this, it just plain gets the job done. It has also proven quite sturdy/reliable, even on popular sites like this one.
  - blowski 11y ago
    > it just plain gets the job done Depends on the job.
  - cmiller1 11y ago
    One of the things I kind of miss about the table based layouts of yesteryear was it seemed to be a lot easier to make sites that looked good in terminal/text based web browsers. The modern idea of doing all of your actual layout in CSS doesn't degrade as well for text based browsers. Here's a challenge for you frontend hackers out there: show me a now standard <ul> based horizontal nav-bar... that also renders horizontally in w3m and lynx.
    - duderific 11y ago
      I've always felt a little uncomfortable using <ul> for a horizontal nav bar (although I'm aware that is a common usage). <ul> is a block level element and so is not semantically correct for a horizontal set of elements.
      - majewsky 11y ago
        > <ul> is a block level element This just happens to be the default style. At its core, <ul> is an unordered list. Whether you happen to arrange the items horizontally, vertically, or any other way, is just presentation. Which is precisely why CSS is separate from HTML.
    - erikpukinskis 11y ago
      Why does it have to render horizontally? I think the goal is that the text-based layout is just a simple outline, and CSS is used to get a spatial layout. It sounds like you want a little of both worlds. You're right tables can be hacked to do that, but you're going against the grain of the technology, and I'd ask what you hope to gain? I think many "frontend hackers" spend their time focused on what can be done and not enough on what should be done. This is a side-effect of our hyperspecialization culture which discourages designers and developers pushing back on each other, out of fear of stepping on each others' expertise. But I think that fear prevents the kind of real collaboration that's required to make a great UI.
- pvg 11y ago
  We already had the website equivalent of béton brut in the formative stages of the web. Just about all websites were the correct color. https://www.google.com/search?q=mosaic+browser&safe=off&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS545US545&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiF7fWSu5fMAhVB02MKHd5_CSwQ_AUIBygB&biw=1313&bih=785 https://www.google.com/search?q=mosaic+browser&safe=off&rlz=...
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- JimmyM 11y ago
  I think that exposing and styling some of the hidden elements - <script> or <noscript> or <meta> or <link> or whatever - would also be in keeping with the ethos. Unless that's what you meant and I'm just repeating you, I'm not sure.

platz 11y ago

I wonder what the website equivalent of concrete is. "There is often an emphasis on graphically expressing in the external elevations and in the whole-site architectural plan the main functions and people-flows of the buildings." This might suggest ways to express navigation that are explicit and not hidden

ktRolster 11y ago
I'm tempted to reply that a brutalist website would be one that keeps decoration to a minimum, but.....that wouldn't fit, because (for example) the Geisel Library has plenty of decoration, it's just in concrete and glass. Maybe a brutalist HTML page would have the tags embedded, kind of like the WordPerfect codes.
- petercooper 11y ago
  A bit like the Hotmetal editor from 90s? :-) http://literacy.kent.edu/Midwest/Graphics/hotmetal.jpg http://literacy.kent.edu/Midwest/Graphics/hotmetal.jpg
USAnum1 11y ago
Another thing I thought of was using the <table> tag for layout. It's austere, as well as an anti-pattern when used exclusively. Despite this, it just plain gets the job done. It has also proven quite sturdy/reliable, even on popular sites like this one.
- blowski 11y ago
  > it just plain gets the job done Depends on the job.
- cmiller1 11y ago
  One of the things I kind of miss about the table based layouts of yesteryear was it seemed to be a lot easier to make sites that looked good in terminal/text based web browsers. The modern idea of doing all of your actual layout in CSS doesn't degrade as well for text based browsers. Here's a challenge for you frontend hackers out there: show me a now standard <ul> based horizontal nav-bar... that also renders horizontally in w3m and lynx.
  - duderific 11y ago
    I've always felt a little uncomfortable using <ul> for a horizontal nav bar (although I'm aware that is a common usage). <ul> is a block level element and so is not semantically correct for a horizontal set of elements.
    - majewsky 11y ago
      > <ul> is a block level element This just happens to be the default style. At its core, <ul> is an unordered list. Whether you happen to arrange the items horizontally, vertically, or any other way, is just presentation. Which is precisely why CSS is separate from HTML.
  - erikpukinskis 11y ago
    Why does it have to render horizontally? I think the goal is that the text-based layout is just a simple outline, and CSS is used to get a spatial layout. It sounds like you want a little of both worlds. You're right tables can be hacked to do that, but you're going against the grain of the technology, and I'd ask what you hope to gain? I think many "frontend hackers" spend their time focused on what can be done and not enough on what should be done. This is a side-effect of our hyperspecialization culture which discourages designers and developers pushing back on each other, out of fear of stepping on each others' expertise. But I think that fear prevents the kind of real collaboration that's required to make a great UI.
pvg 11y ago
We already had the website equivalent of béton brut in the formative stages of the web. Just about all websites were the correct color. https://www.google.com/search?q=mosaic+browser&safe=off&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS545US545&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiF7fWSu5fMAhVB02MKHd5_CSwQ_AUIBygB&biw=1313&bih=785 https://www.google.com/search?q=mosaic+browser&safe=off&rlz=...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
JimmyM 11y ago
I think that exposing and styling some of the hidden elements - <script> or <noscript> or <meta> or <link> or whatever - would also be in keeping with the ethos. Unless that's what you meant and I'm just repeating you, I'm not sure.