11 ms·
Very old and very relevant: https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://bettermotherfuck
by halgir 7y ago
Very old and very relevant:
https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/
http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/
And if you search for "motherfucking website", you'll find a million similar, satirical versions of a website inspired by that first one.
- ChrisSD 7y agoSure but they are web pages, not websites. The distinction matters and does undermine the satire somewhat.
- adrianN 7y agoWhat's the distinction?
- pavpanchekha 7y agoMore than one page. Sounds trivial, but having more than one web page also means you'll have navigation, which is much more challenging on default browser styles than simple document markup.
- 7777fps 7y agoIt's almost a shame the idea of having a sitemap.xml which the browser could parse and provide native navigation for never took off. Of course it didn't because native controls are the first thing any designer changes because native controls on the web were always associated with amateur websites.
- shantly 7y agoTo be fair native controls were total ass for years. And still kind of are. Doubly so if you're trying to build an "app". Basic crap any half-decent UI toolkit would provide out of the box, just not there at all. The stuff that is there's often not great. It seems like as soon as it became common to work around problems with HTML ui in Javascript, the already-slow work to improve the standard appearance and functionality of HTML websites dropped to almost zero. We got some alright semantic-markup stuff after that but it took forever to even get a couple layout primitives that are non-terrible.
- x3haloed 7y agoRight. This page is also not interactive. I'd like to to see an interactive example that's also not an eye sore.
- robofanatic 7y agohttps://craigslist.org https://craigslist.org
- patentatt 7y agoI’m no designer, and I have lots of love for Craigslist, but ... does it qualify as ‘not an eyesore?’
- x3haloed 7y agoNo. It's certainly an eye sore.
- RandomGuyDTB 7y agoIs it? I've never had any problem using Craig's List and it just works. There are no hamburgers, no material design, the dropdowns look like dropdowns, and the links look like links. I love Craig's List! It's one of the only shopping/marketplace websites I don't dislike. My philosophy is that if you want it to have fancy CSS and skeuomorphic buttons, use a CSS extension and make your own CSS for it. Even better - use a browser that lets you edit a page's CSS in WYSIWYG (if there are any). If Craig's List was suddenly revamped and looked like Amazon or Newegg, I would no longer use it.
- thrower123 7y agoIt's a thing of pure, unadulterated beauty in this day and age.
- robofanatic 7y agoagreed it is eyesore. but, it is lightweight it is responsive and it works
- iscrewyou 7y agoThere’s a distinction between a website and a web app. Web pages and websites are synonymous.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ChrisSD 7y agoNo I meant those two pages are each a single, individual, isolated page. A website is a collection of web pages, usually structured (even if loosely).
- wtetzner 7y agoSo, to make it a website you just need some links on each page that let you get to the other pages. I don't see how that undermines the satire.
- earthboundkid 7y agoBecause it's easy to make one webpage, but when you make a website, you immediately run into a huge wall of issues about consistency and navigability. For example, it's become a convention that in the upper-left of a website, there will be a logo that leads you to the homepage of the site. How do you do that with bettermotherfuckingwebsite?
- debaserab2 7y agoHugo or any other static page generator work perfectly for maintaining clean and consistent markup.
- SamBam 7y agoSince the location of the menu to go to other pages was a big part of the original post, I'd say in this context it's pretty relevant.
- shantly 7y ago
- jeremycw 7y agohttp://www.motherfuckingblog.com/ http://www.motherfuckingblog.com/
- pingyong 7y agoIs it bad that I unironically like the first one, actually more than the second one?
- Enginerrrd 7y agoI do too.
- naringas 7y agoagreed, the "better" motherfucking website wastes all that precious space with it's gloriously large and dumb margins around the text. the kind of silly idocy that makes me glad there's a reader mode to undo that crap. the original motherfucking website is already perfect, no reaching for the reader mode.
- MH15 7y agoI actually prefer the margins, as it doesn't force me to move my eyes so much. I know it sounds stupid, but that's why we have text wrapping containers.
- eyelidlessness 7y agoIt doesn't sound stupid. Readability declines as line length increases.
- juped 7y agoIf your "reader mode" doesn't have margins, it's not a reader mode.
- naringas 7y agothe cool thing about it is that you can adjust it to your preferences.
- eikenberry 7y agoThis is the one advantage of the column-less layout... you can create your own column by resizing your browser where otherwise you don't get a vote, you get what they think is best.
- ljw1001 7y agoYeah, but can it really be good if you can't load the motherfuckingwebsite because your IT department blocked the website because it has a dirty word in it?
- dijit 7y agoMy IT department intercept TLS and break half of the internet in the process. So they can get fucked in my opinion. I’m not convinced that the issue lies with the website. Infantilising your users is exactly why contempt exists for sysadmins. And I say that as a sysadmin.
- dredmorbius 7y agoI'm biased for obvivious reasons, but: https://codepen.io/dredmorbius/full/KpMqqB https://codepen.io/dredmorbius/full/KpMqqB
- dorkwood 7y agoWhen did beauty become something we loathe? Any attempt to make something look nice invites scorn from the programmer community. Get out of here with your styling and your white space, we only want to see black text on a white background. I mean, I get it -- it's about load times, readability, accessibility, yadda yadda. But does that really mean everything has to look like shit? Why is it a binary choice? "Well, I actually think that motherfuckingwebsite looks good. It's beautiful in its simplicity." Fair call, there's no accounting for taste. But does this attitude also extend to, say, public spaces? What about architecture? Should a house be designed like motherfuckingwebsite.com?
- braneloop 7y agoIf a house is hard to live in, does it really matter how beautiful it is?
- carlmr 7y agoYou can make beautiful static websites with almost no extra load. Just add a little CSS. Using e.g. Hugo you can generate nice static websites from markdown that are compact but not ugly.
- dorkwood 7y agoLook, I wouldn't want to live in a "beautiful" house that didn't have a bathroom. But your response also kind of demonstrates my point, which is that somewhere along the way we decided that beauty was the antithesis of usability. My suggestion is that they can coexist.