5 ms·

Maybe you'd prefer comparing the code of a website to the amount of useful content on the website, which OP also did. Taking "I'm downloading 100mb worth of stu

by Pete_D 8y ago

Maybe you'd prefer comparing the code of a website to the amount of useful content on the website, which OP also did. Taking "I'm downloading 100mb worth of stuff (83 Moby-Dicks) to read 72kb worth of plaintext" at face value, we could also say that 0.072% of the data transferred is useful, or, equivalently, that 99.928% of it is crap.

pc86 8y ago
You don't have to download the typography of a physical book but it still plays a huge role in the readability and enjoyment of it. So I guess the typography of websites is "crap" because it has to be downloaded? It's a ridiculous apples-and-hammers comparison thinly veiled as an intelligent critique.
- cheezymoogle 8y ago
  I can put raw text on a kindle and read it. In fact, I frequently do. Comparing digital text to digital text is not apples-and-hammers.
- chickenfries 8y ago
  Exactly, it’s not the NYTs fault that plain text compresses well compared to jpgs. Also, is a world where he NYT is subscriber only really preferable?
  - cheezymoogle 8y ago
    This is a textbook definition of a false dichotomy. There are other distribution models for digital news services. There are other methods for transmitting digital content. It's not an either/or situation.
    - chickenfries 8y ago
      Fair enough but these rants on HN about publishers never seem to contain any examples of publications that are both successful and delivering pages that weigh scarcely more than their plain text equivalent. I think you invite the “false dichotomy” by making the comparison between plain text Moby Dick and the front page of one of the most successful newspapers in the world in 2018. I agree with many of your points but find the way you make your argument to be full of comparisons of apples and oranges while avoiding proposing any kind of solution.
      - cheezymoogle 8y ago
        Did you read the article I posted? I definitely put forward both an acknowledgment that media firms won't change and ideas towards reducing usage where possible.
        chickenfries 8y ago
        Again with your post I see many more words about Moby Dick and nostalgizing for a past that no longer exists then words about a possible solution, and while your solutions are better than the typical “just move to a susbscription model,” I can’t see how we would generate the political will for anything other than cheap internet. We can’t even agree to tax carbon emissions yet. How are we going to tax bandwith and convince everyone to accept a low bandwith internet? I don’t have any great ideas myself, but part of me sees the Americans with Disabilities Act as a model for getting this done. I really don’t like AMP because of the Google Cache and the potential for google to bias their search results page to emphasize AMP pages over similarly performing non AMP pages, but it’s a better thought out attempt to fix “the Bullshit Web” than anything else I’ve seen, and it has been extremely successful in decreasing payload size for many readers of sites like NYT and other major publishers.
      - flukus 8y ago
        > Fair enough but these rants on HN about publishers never seem to contain any examples of publications that are both successful and delivering pages that weigh scarcely more than their plain text equivalent. Examples would be the same publications 10 or 20 years ago. They weren't exactly plain text but they were a lot lighter and the content has not improved measurably in that time. Here's one from the 70's that's still going: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel
        chickenfries 8y ago
        I don't care about examples from 10 or 20 years ago, I want examples from the current market. Minitel isn't a publication? I'm familiar with Minitel, I've read a book on it, but I don't know what you're trying to insinuate by linking it here in a discussion about publishing. Also, "still going strong?" Minitel was discontinued, in 2012. Because France has the modern internet now.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  How much of the data downloaded is actually for typography? Also, browsers have good enough typography by default, which can be controlled with CSS.
  - cheezymoogle 8y ago
    Everyone's favorite example of that kind of "brutalist" design: http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/
    - dredmorbius 8y ago
      https://codepen.io/dredmorbius/pen/KpMqqB https://codepen.io/dredmorbius/pen/KpMqqB
      - cheezymoogle 8y ago
        A++++++ would inspect elements again.
        dredmorbius 8y ago
        Aww! Thanks ;-)
    - molotovbliss 8y ago
      Came looking for motherfuckingwebsite.com & find an even better site to reference now instead. Kudos!
    - mrob 8y ago
      Bad design because of the low contrast text. There used to be a superior version at https://bestmotherfucking.website/ https://bestmotherfucking.website/ , but it isn't loading correctly for me on Firefox.
- mrob 8y ago
  I've already downloaded everything I need for perfect typography. I can apply it to most websites with Firefox's Reader Mode. Websites cannot possibly improve on this, because the best and most legible typography is the typography you're most familiar with. I don't care about branding or image or whatever bullshit "designers" use to justify their jobs. Web fonts and CSS have negative value to me. I disable them as far as possible.
mrlala 8y ago
So, we should revert all websites to plaintext because the content/garbage ratio is higher? I am the developer of an Angular business application. It's about 7mb uncompressed javascript. If I create a new angular app that just say "Hello world" it will also be about 7mb. By your standards 99.99%+ of the data transferred is "crap". Afterall, you just downloaded 7 megabytes to see hello world. Well now let's increase that by maybe 5-10k. Now you have a fully tabbed web-based application which can connect to a server and give you real-time information on blah blah blah whatever. But.. only 0.01% is "useful content", the rest is just "crap". I guess we should go back to the web 10+ years ago. Wow the data transfer is so small, this must be the best! I sure hope I don't need to ever change this website because the jumbled shit of unmanaged code that only the Messiah could hope to decipher a few months after it was written. Just showing you how silly this entire argument is. There is obviously lots of overhead for many things these days- but so what? Data transfer and computing is cheap. Everyone's time is not. If someone is able to develop a website and have crazy flexibility to maintain it and the only tradeoff is some data overhead.. what in the hell is the problem with that?

by Pete_D 8y ago

pc86 8y ago

You don't have to download the typography of a physical book but it still plays a huge role in the readability and enjoyment of it. So I guess the typography of websites is "crap" because it has to be downloaded? It's a ridiculous apples-and-hammers comparison thinly veiled as an intelligent critique.

cheezymoogle 8y ago
I can put raw text on a kindle and read it. In fact, I frequently do. Comparing digital text to digital text is not apples-and-hammers.
chickenfries 8y ago
Exactly, it’s not the NYTs fault that plain text compresses well compared to jpgs. Also, is a world where he NYT is subscriber only really preferable?
- cheezymoogle 8y ago
  This is a textbook definition of a false dichotomy. There are other distribution models for digital news services. There are other methods for transmitting digital content. It's not an either/or situation.
  - chickenfries 8y ago
    Fair enough but these rants on HN about publishers never seem to contain any examples of publications that are both successful and delivering pages that weigh scarcely more than their plain text equivalent. I think you invite the “false dichotomy” by making the comparison between plain text Moby Dick and the front page of one of the most successful newspapers in the world in 2018. I agree with many of your points but find the way you make your argument to be full of comparisons of apples and oranges while avoiding proposing any kind of solution.
    - cheezymoogle 8y ago
      Did you read the article I posted? I definitely put forward both an acknowledgment that media firms won't change and ideas towards reducing usage where possible.
      - chickenfries 8y ago
        Again with your post I see many more words about Moby Dick and nostalgizing for a past that no longer exists then words about a possible solution, and while your solutions are better than the typical “just move to a susbscription model,” I can’t see how we would generate the political will for anything other than cheap internet. We can’t even agree to tax carbon emissions yet. How are we going to tax bandwith and convince everyone to accept a low bandwith internet? I don’t have any great ideas myself, but part of me sees the Americans with Disabilities Act as a model for getting this done. I really don’t like AMP because of the Google Cache and the potential for google to bias their search results page to emphasize AMP pages over similarly performing non AMP pages, but it’s a better thought out attempt to fix “the Bullshit Web” than anything else I’ve seen, and it has been extremely successful in decreasing payload size for many readers of sites like NYT and other major publishers.
    - flukus 8y ago
      > Fair enough but these rants on HN about publishers never seem to contain any examples of publications that are both successful and delivering pages that weigh scarcely more than their plain text equivalent. Examples would be the same publications 10 or 20 years ago. They weren't exactly plain text but they were a lot lighter and the content has not improved measurably in that time. Here's one from the 70's that's still going: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel
      - chickenfries 8y ago
        I don't care about examples from 10 or 20 years ago, I want examples from the current market. Minitel isn't a publication? I'm familiar with Minitel, I've read a book on it, but I don't know what you're trying to insinuate by linking it here in a discussion about publishing. Also, "still going strong?" Minitel was discontinued, in 2012. Because France has the modern internet now.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
How much of the data downloaded is actually for typography? Also, browsers have good enough typography by default, which can be controlled with CSS.
- cheezymoogle 8y ago
  Everyone's favorite example of that kind of "brutalist" design: http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/
  - dredmorbius 8y ago
    https://codepen.io/dredmorbius/pen/KpMqqB https://codepen.io/dredmorbius/pen/KpMqqB
    - cheezymoogle 8y ago
      A++++++ would inspect elements again.
      - dredmorbius 8y ago
        Aww! Thanks ;-)
  - molotovbliss 8y ago
    Came looking for motherfuckingwebsite.com & find an even better site to reference now instead. Kudos!
  - mrob 8y ago
    Bad design because of the low contrast text. There used to be a superior version at https://bestmotherfucking.website/ https://bestmotherfucking.website/ , but it isn't loading correctly for me on Firefox.
mrob 8y ago
I've already downloaded everything I need for perfect typography. I can apply it to most websites with Firefox's Reader Mode. Websites cannot possibly improve on this, because the best and most legible typography is the typography you're most familiar with. I don't care about branding or image or whatever bullshit "designers" use to justify their jobs. Web fonts and CSS have negative value to me. I disable them as far as possible.

mrlala 8y ago

So, we should revert all websites to plaintext because the content/garbage ratio is higher? I am the developer of an Angular business application. It's about 7mb uncompressed javascript. If I create a new angular app that just say "Hello world" it will also be about 7mb. By your standards 99.99%+ of the data transferred is "crap". Afterall, you just downloaded 7 megabytes to see hello world. Well now let's increase that by maybe 5-10k. Now you have a fully tabbed web-based application which can connect to a server and give you real-time information on blah blah blah whatever. But.. only 0.01% is "useful content", the rest is just "crap". I guess we should go back to the web 10+ years ago. Wow the data transfer is so small, this must be the best! I sure hope I don't need to ever change this website because the jumbled shit of unmanaged code that only the Messiah could hope to decipher a few months after it was written. Just showing you how silly this entire argument is. There is obviously lots of overhead for many things these days- but so what? Data transfer and computing is cheap. Everyone's time is not. If someone is able to develop a website and have crazy flexibility to maintain it and the only tradeoff is some data overhead.. what in the hell is the problem with that?