3 ms·
Baffled by the ugly=better trend on HN and elsewhere. The linked site scores low in readability and overall UX, this "still better than a ReactJS site" mentalit
by kenforthewin 9y ago
Baffled by the ugly=better trend on HN and elsewhere. The linked site scores low in readability and overall UX, this "still better than a ReactJS site" mentality has to die.
- throwaway5752 9y agoElaborate on the "low in readability and overall UX". It loaded fast, and didn't use a cpu intensive client side animation that doesn't add to readability. It's not a paragon of design, but it was refreshing to have a single page of text that didn't download a few mbs in libraries and css, have constant tracking requests, or have animations or visualization that didn't add to my understanding of the content.
- kenforthewin 9y ago> Elaborate... - Arbitrarily changing text effects/color/padding. - Not responsive. On my laptop, I have to scroll left/right to see all pics - Nav is below the fold, I have to scroll down to see it. - Broken text hover effects Sure, it doesn't track you or download 100 js files, but you can't score a site based on what it doesn't have.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago> it doesn't track you or download 100 js files, but you can't score a site based on what it doesn't have. Well judging by the positive reaction by a non-negligible number of people, the lack of javascript bloat may be something valued by many on this site.
- throwaway5752 9y agoYour points are well taken. It's not a well designed site, but to play devil's advocate I hardly noticed the need to scroll right (focus was on text) and didn't notice the text hover effect issue. Nav being below fold was largely immaterial because more information of interest was on the single page.