3 ms·

The web looks like shit

6 points by panic 10y ago

mmel 10y ago
The site is a good example of what the article is complaining about.
- sidcool 10y ago
  May be intentionally?
  - lgas 10y ago
    The rest of the site is all the same, so I doubt it.
Nadya 10y ago
Calling out other websites as shit invites critique of their own, in my opinion. As far as I can tell, the article is more about UX than UI. "The web acts like shit" would be a more proper title. The high contrast purple of the site is ironic I suppose, looking at their other articles. Can someone explain to me what the info icon is supposed to do in their social share area? [0] Why do most things lack a proper :hover state, instead relying entirely on cursor:pointer? Why is the share menu hidden behind a "return" icon? >Share buttons and prompts to “read more” treat readers like idiots who don’t know how to do basic tasks Pot meet kettle [1]. And no, it isn't just for this article to make an ironic point (like the purple background). >Text that’s invaded by ads Pot meet kettle [2]. Well let's give another article a chance. >NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THE INTERNET IS A SWAMP AND THE TROLLS HAVE WON >ongratulations, Twitter eggs, GamerGate supporters, and YouTube commenters — you win, the internet is all yours. The contrast of their menu sucks on white backgrounds[3]. Tried to copy the first sentence, it's broken of course due to their unique first letter. Speaking of shitty web....way to go, you guys and gals managed to fuck up copy/paste. On another note - I'm out. Lumping #GG with trolls? I'm sure I can expect quality investigative journalism from this site /s. [0] http://i.imgur.com/JJiVnqb.png http://i.imgur.com/JJiVnqb.png [1] http://i.imgur.com/E3ZNEgI.png http://i.imgur.com/E3ZNEgI.png [2] http://i.imgur.com/nT21CFR.png http://i.imgur.com/nT21CFR.png [3] http://i.imgur.com/NxAZMO7.png http://i.imgur.com/NxAZMO7.png
- drdeca 10y ago
  Whether or not GG has much merit to it separate from this, I am fairly strongly under the impression that there are a substantial number of people such that the main interaction they have had with GG/"GG" is from people searching through a topic and sending aggressive(?) messages to people who expressed disapproval of the group, in a way that isn't particularly helpful. So, even if GG has substantial merits to it, it seems reasonable that someone with such experiences would continue to have a negative viewpoint of the group, even if the people sending the messages ' arent GG proper '/'aren't true GGers' by whatever standard you want to use for what a GGer is. I think that even if GG is/were "overall" good, it doesn't seem unreasonable that a person would think it bad. If the article was about GG in particular, then investigating it in particular would be important, but as just an example in a sentence, I don't think having a negative opinion towards GG is enough to discredit whatever journalism?
  - Nadya 10y ago
    >I don't think having a negative opinion towards GG is enough to discredit whatever journalism? My issue with using #GG as an example is that the MSM narrative of #GG is precisely that - and parroting it is lazy and cliché to me. I suppose I've become jaded from the time I spent around #GG. But really, I could have picked any of their other articles. Most of them are rehashes of already-popular topics or pointless drivel like "We found out what camera Kendrick Lamar used to make a tiny planet". The coolest article I actually read was "I asked Tony Hawk if he would teach me how to ollie and he said yes." and not because of the content, but because they actually bothered asking Tony Hawk to teach one of them and he said yes. That is actually kinda cool that they'd fund that for an article. It's different, although the article itself was pretty lackluster and had a bunch of annoying 3-5 second gifs littered throughout. E: Oh god this post has gone through nearly 20 minutes of constant edits. To anyone who was reading one of the 500,000 variations of this post or formulating a response - I apologize. I'm done now.

6 points by panic 10y ago

mmel 10y ago

The site is a good example of what the article is complaining about.

sidcool 10y ago
May be intentionally?
- lgas 10y ago
  The rest of the site is all the same, so I doubt it.

Nadya 10y ago

Calling out other websites as shit invites critique of their own, in my opinion. As far as I can tell, the article is more about UX than UI. "The web acts like shit" would be a more proper title. The high contrast purple of the site is ironic I suppose, looking at their other articles. Can someone explain to me what the info icon is supposed to do in their social share area? [0] Why do most things lack a proper :hover state, instead relying entirely on cursor:pointer? Why is the share menu hidden behind a "return" icon? >Share buttons and prompts to “read more” treat readers like idiots who don’t know how to do basic tasks Pot meet kettle [1]. And no, it isn't just for this article to make an ironic point (like the purple background). >Text that’s invaded by ads Pot meet kettle [2]. Well let's give another article a chance. >NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THE INTERNET IS A SWAMP AND THE TROLLS HAVE WON >ongratulations, Twitter eggs, GamerGate supporters, and YouTube commenters — you win, the internet is all yours. The contrast of their menu sucks on white backgrounds[3]. Tried to copy the first sentence, it's broken of course due to their unique first letter. Speaking of shitty web....way to go, you guys and gals managed to fuck up copy/paste. On another note - I'm out. Lumping #GG with trolls? I'm sure I can expect quality investigative journalism from this site /s. [0] http://i.imgur.com/JJiVnqb.png http://i.imgur.com/JJiVnqb.png [1] http://i.imgur.com/E3ZNEgI.png http://i.imgur.com/E3ZNEgI.png [2] http://i.imgur.com/nT21CFR.png http://i.imgur.com/nT21CFR.png [3] http://i.imgur.com/NxAZMO7.png http://i.imgur.com/NxAZMO7.png

drdeca 10y ago
Whether or not GG has much merit to it separate from this, I am fairly strongly under the impression that there are a substantial number of people such that the main interaction they have had with GG/"GG" is from people searching through a topic and sending aggressive(?) messages to people who expressed disapproval of the group, in a way that isn't particularly helpful. So, even if GG has substantial merits to it, it seems reasonable that someone with such experiences would continue to have a negative viewpoint of the group, even if the people sending the messages ' arent GG proper '/'aren't true GGers' by whatever standard you want to use for what a GGer is. I think that even if GG is/were "overall" good, it doesn't seem unreasonable that a person would think it bad. If the article was about GG in particular, then investigating it in particular would be important, but as just an example in a sentence, I don't think having a negative opinion towards GG is enough to discredit whatever journalism?
- Nadya 10y ago
  >I don't think having a negative opinion towards GG is enough to discredit whatever journalism? My issue with using #GG as an example is that the MSM narrative of #GG is precisely that - and parroting it is lazy and cliché to me. I suppose I've become jaded from the time I spent around #GG. But really, I could have picked any of their other articles. Most of them are rehashes of already-popular topics or pointless drivel like "We found out what camera Kendrick Lamar used to make a tiny planet". The coolest article I actually read was "I asked Tony Hawk if he would teach me how to ollie and he said yes." and not because of the content, but because they actually bothered asking Tony Hawk to teach one of them and he said yes. That is actually kinda cool that they'd fund that for an article. It's different, although the article itself was pretty lackluster and had a bunch of annoying 3-5 second gifs littered throughout. E: Oh god this post has gone through nearly 20 minutes of constant edits. To anyone who was reading one of the 500,000 variations of this post or formulating a response - I apologize. I'm done now.