3 ms·

A website shouldn't be a book.

by blue4 8y ago

krapp 8y ago
A website whose purpose is to convey textual information and to be readable should resemble a book, or more likely, a magazine, because it has a similar function to the printed page.
- exodust 8y ago
  "Convey textual information" is not the sole purpose of any website. Websites have many purposes and functions, including of course interactive functions and connections with other elements both within the site and from other places. Completely different to any book.
  - krapp 8y ago
    > "Convey textual information" is not the sole purpose of any website. It doesn't have to be the sole purpose of any website for it to be the primary purpose of many. For instance the purpose of this forum, along with many forums, is to convey primarily textual information in the form of comments arranged in a hierarchy. The purpose of medium.com is to convey textual information in the form of blog posts. The purpose of a site like Wired, newspaper sites and magazine sites, like their analog counterparts, is to convey textual information (albeit with a heavy graphical element) in the form of articles. Websites expand upon the possibilities inherent to the medium of the printed page but HTML is a hypertext format, and its purpose (and therefore the purpose of most webpages) is to convey information in the form of hypertext. Interactivity and embedded elements don't detract from the textual nature of the web or its origin in concept or the relationship in the styles evolved with the printed page. >Completely different to any book. Different in structure, but not different in purpose, and therefore not completely divorced from the same design considerations. Yes, we could design every website to look the way the redesigns in the article do, but would you really rather use the hacker news redesign presented in the article than this one? Would you rather use any of those redesigns?
TeMPOraL 8y ago
Yup. It should use the power of the medium (the "magic ink") to become even more efficient at its function. Which is the exact opposite of what this article tries to recommend.
quantummkv 8y ago
It also shouldn't be seizure inducing, retina burning vomit of random colors over a page. A website should be readable with the least amount of mind power given to stuff other than the main content. Look at the gmail redesign. The modernized it. Used cool new material design and other modern goodies. And yet there is a gmail redesign hate thread on HN every other day. When I am reading or doing anything, I want to spend my focus and time on the content. Not on the side distractions that serve no purpose.
mcv 8y ago
A website is not a book, but just like novels have found an effective form, so websites have also found an effective form. I'm sure there will be improvements on that form in the future, but when that happens, most websites will adopt it, and most websites will still look very similar.
- exodust 8y ago
  The book analogy doesn't work. There is no point mentioning books. A website is nothing like a book in form, function, purpose, appearance, use, lifespan, the list goes on. You're confusing the equivalence. A "novel" is a type of book. A "website" is not a type of "something". A website can be anything the owner wants it to be, with different functions and purpose. It doesn't need to conform to the other "novels" because of some perceived "effective form". That's the point I take from the OP's article. Websites have not "found their form", that's just the reason you've chosen to believe based on so many websites using the same template.
  - mcv 8y ago
    It was never an analogy. I'm saying that a website should be like a website. Just like a book is like a book. And like books, websites have a purpose that determines their design. A website can indeed be many different things, but a lot of websites have very similar purposes, so it makes every kind of sense that websites with the same purposes end up looking similar. Just like cars look alike. Or houses. Of course websites with a different purpose are going to look very different.
PeterisP 8y ago
A webside definitely shouldn't be a poster. The "nice" redesigns offered in the article "work" as visually interesting posters, but utterly fail as websites - they become unusable, they sacrifice function to improve the visuals. A book-like website may be suboptimal but is usable, but a fancy poster-like website is much worse than that.

A website shouldn't be a book.

by blue4 8y ago

A website shouldn't be a book.

A website whose purpose is to convey textual information and to be readable should resemble a book, or more likely, a magazine, because it has a similar function to the printed page.

exodust 8y ago
"Convey textual information" is not the sole purpose of any website. Websites have many purposes and functions, including of course interactive functions and connections with other elements both within the site and from other places. Completely different to any book.
- krapp 8y ago
  > "Convey textual information" is not the sole purpose of any website. It doesn't have to be the sole purpose of any website for it to be the primary purpose of many. For instance the purpose of this forum, along with many forums, is to convey primarily textual information in the form of comments arranged in a hierarchy. The purpose of medium.com is to convey textual information in the form of blog posts. The purpose of a site like Wired, newspaper sites and magazine sites, like their analog counterparts, is to convey textual information (albeit with a heavy graphical element) in the form of articles. Websites expand upon the possibilities inherent to the medium of the printed page but HTML is a hypertext format, and its purpose (and therefore the purpose of most webpages) is to convey information in the form of hypertext. Interactivity and embedded elements don't detract from the textual nature of the web or its origin in concept or the relationship in the styles evolved with the printed page. >Completely different to any book. Different in structure, but not different in purpose, and therefore not completely divorced from the same design considerations. Yes, we could design every website to look the way the redesigns in the article do, but would you really rather use the hacker news redesign presented in the article than this one? Would you rather use any of those redesigns?

TeMPOraL 8y ago

Yup. It should use the power of the medium (the "magic ink") to become even more efficient at its function. Which is the exact opposite of what this article tries to recommend.

quantummkv 8y ago

It also shouldn't be seizure inducing, retina burning vomit of random colors over a page. A website should be readable with the least amount of mind power given to stuff other than the main content. Look at the gmail redesign. The modernized it. Used cool new material design and other modern goodies. And yet there is a gmail redesign hate thread on HN every other day. When I am reading or doing anything, I want to spend my focus and time on the content. Not on the side distractions that serve no purpose.

mcv 8y ago

A website is not a book, but just like novels have found an effective form, so websites have also found an effective form. I'm sure there will be improvements on that form in the future, but when that happens, most websites will adopt it, and most websites will still look very similar.

exodust 8y ago
The book analogy doesn't work. There is no point mentioning books. A website is nothing like a book in form, function, purpose, appearance, use, lifespan, the list goes on. You're confusing the equivalence. A "novel" is a type of book. A "website" is not a type of "something". A website can be anything the owner wants it to be, with different functions and purpose. It doesn't need to conform to the other "novels" because of some perceived "effective form". That's the point I take from the OP's article. Websites have not "found their form", that's just the reason you've chosen to believe based on so many websites using the same template.
- mcv 8y ago
  It was never an analogy. I'm saying that a website should be like a website. Just like a book is like a book. And like books, websites have a purpose that determines their design. A website can indeed be many different things, but a lot of websites have very similar purposes, so it makes every kind of sense that websites with the same purposes end up looking similar. Just like cars look alike. Or houses. Of course websites with a different purpose are going to look very different.

PeterisP 8y ago

A webside definitely shouldn't be a poster. The "nice" redesigns offered in the article "work" as visually interesting posters, but utterly fail as websites - they become unusable, they sacrifice function to improve the visuals. A book-like website may be suboptimal but is usable, but a fancy poster-like website is much worse than that.