I'm not being facetious. I'm narrating a user experience. One that still leaves me with a lack of understanding about the purpose of this site. Considering the

I'm not being facetious. I'm narrating a user experience. One that still leaves me with a lack of understanding about the purpose of this site. Considering the ranking my comment received, a fair number of other HN readers agree that this site has terrible usability. Early comments addressing the use of the site made guesses that are apparently wrong. I say "apparently" because by now there are quite a few comments clarifying the intent of the site. That intent is not communicated by the site itself. Chrome tells me dh2048 is "unsupported." If the site says "this is good" and Chrome says it's "unsupported" but then Chrome displays an error code indicating "obsolete," I can't tell who's wrong here. Either Chrome's developers chose the wrong error code, or badssl.com is recommending an "obsolete" algorithm which sounds bad (why would it be obsolete if it's good?) The site taught me nothing. Maybe the site wasn't intended for a wider audience. (I've see corporate training contracting companies set up similar sites for their students: it is in no way obvious what the intent is unless you have sat through their class.) But it's been linked on a discussion site with a wider audience. Maybe it's a valuable resource, but without an explanation, it's just another website with bad UX. There seems to be an attitude that appears in tech crowds often enough: well I know what this is, how could you possibly misunderstand? They forget that other humans, with other perspectives and other experiences than their own would lack the context that makes things "make sense." They fail to see through the eyes of someone different. It's bad for user experience. That doesn't mean everything should be designed for everyone. Maybe badssl.com serves its audience well. Maybe it's not intended for a "wider audience." And that's OK.