6 ms·
A Guide to Minimalist Web Design (2017)
- daureg 7y agoExcept Google, all the websites listed as example got more crowded in the last 3.5 years
- swiley 7y agoIt's strange how different things mean to different people; Some people see web pages as images and so minimalism is an aesthetic decision while others (most people here probably) see a tree of boxes and the aesthetic minimalism should (usually) be a consequence of a simpler description of that tree.
- tomxor 7y agoUnfortunately, everyone else is not reading this... and for those bastards that make you click through 3 popups and then scroll jack you in the middle of reading etc: I really frickin love FireFox's "reader view" (top right in your address bar), it's also beautifully minimal text. Now my first reaction to a popup opening as soon as I navigate to an article or a terribly illegible and busy design is to reach for the reader - guarantees one click, minimal, legible text. In other words, if you can't trust the designers, remove the design.
- Nadge 7y agoTurn on reader view with either F9, or Ctrl+Shift+R, depending on your version of FF :)
- defanor 7y agoI keep checking those minimalism-related websites and guidelines, as well as software projects, just to find out how much views on such a seemingly simple thing vary. For instance, this article argues against unnecessary elements, yet it's about 1.8 MB, has rather useless (IMO) pictures, and I had to scroll down 1.5 screens (in a desktop FF) to see the beginning of the article. And then there are regular vague advices. Apparently some focus on visual minimalism, others -- on pages being lightweight, yet others -- on minimal technologies. And what some would see as necessity others see as bloat.
- godshatter 7y agoAgree. Shouldn't a "minimal" website have everything it needs on one page? Huge images you have to scroll past to read anything useful isn't being minimal, it's just cruft. Surely it's possible to build a website that doesn't take up a lot of screen real-estate, has everything necessary to function, and still looks professional and aesthetically pleasing?
- joevandyk 7y agoYou might have more engagement from more people with larger, more prominent images.
- MaxBarraclough 7y ago> Surely it's possible to build a website that doesn't take up a lot of screen real-estate, has everything necessary to function, and still looks professional and aesthetically pleasing? Given that we're on HackerNews, I think we can answer that with certainty. Well, I suppose looks professional and aesthetically pleasing are subjective, but I wouldn't change HackerNews's look.
- HelloNurse 7y agoWith Internet Explorer (and some cruel and unusual filters, proxies and firewalls) the linked article loads but it is displayed as a solid black rectangle. No better way to prove the importance of avoiding useless complication, in this case gratuitous ornamental Javascript.
- janci 7y agoAlso the scroll position indicator is unnecessary noise, as they call it in the article.
- Minor49er 7y agoSearch for "minimalist design timeless google" and you'll find an endless number of posts exactly like this one. Bloating the web with these copycat posts isn't very minimalist.
- rchaud 7y agoThe same could be said about pretty much every link on Hacker News. Do we need more posts about: - The death of personal websites? - Decentralized social networks? - Setting up a static website with Hugo/Jekyll? - Why we did X in Julia/Rust/Go and not [commonly used framework]?
- ericsanchez 7y agohacker news has been incredibly influential on me in exemplifying what a site could be. I too have been thinking about the philosophy of a minimal amount of "design." After a certain point or certain amount of "design" I feel like we have to ask ourselves, "what's it all for?" I've been getting into more front end territory and have been delighted with how much HTML does. For me, it's not so much about minimalism. I feel that minimalism semantically conveys, "the absolute bare minimum possible." Whereas I like to see the design goal as, "what is necessary to fulfill the required purpose." Shameless little plug here, this is a little experiment I've been working on: erictheread.org
- ggm 7y agoif it had [?] == list of keyboard accelerators, and honours the vi hjkl/asdf type keying for steerage, it would be better. if it did that, and had some elements at top and bottom of the list, so you can [more] even from the top of the new view..
- ericsanchez 7y agoI could not agree more; especially with the vi advice. I'm still a work in progress, but I agree this would be cool. (I have `ESC` remapped to `JJ` and I find myself trying to exit insert mode in emails, papers, etc. all the time...) I've also structured the site in a way so that it kind of has a schema for each article and the next step was to write a little client so one could read from a terminal. Baked into my design philosophy is "reuse" hence not opting for a custom light-to-dark-toggle. Thanks for this though, I'd just reminds me I gotta keep it up ha. Do you think browsing in the terminal would be a hassle for people? I'm also trying not to go too far overboard, thanks!
- ggm 7y agoDo you think browsing in the terminal would be a hassle for people? No. the basics of the site make this close to zero cost and proof-by-example is the alternate textual views of the site which just work (tm) I am trying not to be a google fanboi, but the ubiquitous consistency of keyboard accelerators in gmail, photos, docs, &c by google is one of the reasons I enjoy using their tools. They "get" keyboard warriors, in the browser.
- plg 7y agohttp://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/
- juped 7y agoLet me just preempt the whole comment thread: http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com https://thebestmotherfucking.website https://thebestmotherfucking.website (actually significantly worse) https://bestmotherfucking.website https://bestmotherfucking.website (the best design of the lot) and probably other niche ones
- eropple 7y ago"Significantly worse"? Just getting away from a serif font makes the third you linked way better to me. The text contrast is still good (to head off the "but it's not pure black on white!" cargo cult) and colored headers are distinctive but not obnoxious.
- defanor 7y ago> Just getting away from a serif font makes the third you linked way better to me. The original one doesn't use CSS at all (and doesn't set fonts with serifs), while all the others try to alter fonts and/or their sizes, potentially changing them from ones set/preferred by a user to ones set by a webmaster. thebestmotherfucking.website also tries to override colors. I think these are good (simple, hence easy to reason about) examples of the awkwardness that comes out of styling (and complexity of relatively simple decisions): some would assume certain user agents and settings, and possibly that users don't configure those. Not to mention that some may actually prefer serifs and other common defaults. Would be amusing if that progression of websites grew even further, to heavy and heavily styled SPAs, completely reversing the original message.
- eropple 7y agoOh no, they used CSS! Heaven forfend one delicately and with restraint use something supported in nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine out of ten thousand browsers. Heaven forfend. A pox on their house. "Sets fonts" is misleading--the creator knows and must know that the default in virtually every browser is whatever dog's-breakfast default serif there is. (Yes, yes, "the browser can change it," because we all know that every user is an artisanal crafter of browser preferences and truly, deeply cares to do that instead of go to a site where somebody thought that through in its presentation.) It's not 1997 anymore. HTML is no longer a document markup language, it is an application-and-presentation toolkit, and whether or not you or I like it--I don't particularly, there are better ones--doesn't excuse doing bad work because we pretend users who happen to be fully congruent with ourselves want it.
- deftturtle 7y agoHere’s my take on minimalism, expressed as website design goals: https://www.calebyers.com/blog/website-design-goals.html https://www.calebyers.com/blog/website-design-goals.html
- zzo38computer 7y agoBe minimal design to avoid CSS and JavaScripts and usually pictures too. Do not specify your own fonts or colours. (There are sometimes cases to do otherwise, but normally you should not need to add all of that stuff.)
- tehjoker 7y agoIt looks like the playable version is down now, but this was my favorite game in 2014: https://www.awwwards.com/sites/flat-design-vs-realism https://www.awwwards.com/sites/flat-design-vs-realism Edit: 2014
- ErikAugust 7y agohttps://beta.trimread.com https://beta.trimread.com No JS. Actual minimalism.
- forgotmypw_ 7y agogreat job!
- AlexDragusin 7y agoShameless plug https://www.leanternet.com/principles/ https://www.leanternet.com/principles/
- LordAtlas 7y agoWebsite with white body text on black background wants to lecture me on design. Pass.
- thdrdt 7y agoI like a data-first approach when designing websites. Or another way to think of it: how HTML was intended. You write HTML and later use CSS to give that data a nice look. Let's say you want to create a blog. Then you might have the following HTML tags in your page: H1, H2, TIME, P, A, IMG That's it. Then style those element and you are done. Now ofcourse the above is an extreme simplification. But with frameworks like Bootstrap you take the complete opposite approach. You fill your HTML with loads and loads of DIVs just to make something look good. Imho this is a mistake. It also makes people to add data they don't need because 'every bootstrap page has a hero'. As for a minimalistic design: just use 1 or 2 margins/paddings and around 3 to 4 colors everywhere.
- Tomte 7y ago> You write HTML and later use CSS to give that data a nice look. That's how I did it a few days ago, after a stint with DokuWiki: https://www.2uo.de/myths-about-urandom/ https://www.2uo.de/myths-about-urandom/ It is kind of "ugly" and I still need to tinker with some things, but it also feels liberating.
- Narishma 7y agoIt looks pleasant to me. Nothing ugly about it.
- warpech 7y agoMilligram [1] and Scaffold (recently on HN [2]) follow this principle of doing a stylesheet for semantic, classless HTML. [1] https://milligram.io/ https://milligram.io/ [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21948472 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21948472
- oneeyedpigeon 7y agoAlthough I mainly agree with you — I pretty much take exactly that minimalist approach with my own site — I think you're being a bit unfair on Bootstrap. Using just your example tags in conjunction with Bootstrap is perfectly acceptable, and it would only really take a single DIV (container) to wrap the content. Bootstrap gets more complicated when it comes to layout, navigation, and additional content, though, but this also becomes an issue in plain HTML anyway. I would, though, like a really good 'minimalist' framework that just works — almost as a reset — with no classes at all. '<table class="table">' has always bugged me in Bootstrap, and there are other examples with certainly feel overengineered, that lead to spaghetti HTML.
- davedx 7y agoMy personal/company website is pretty minimalist, I wish I could keep all my sites and apps this simple https://redskyforge.com/ https://redskyforge.com/
- theandrewbailey 7y agoThat background is a bit heavy. That 2 MB image could be less than 400k and still look OK.
- meerita 7y agoI really like data-first approach. For example, I scaffold everything in Rails, make it work with all the features then I proceed to edit fully the views, etc.
- jstimpfle 7y agoPersonally I think the line spacing in that article is too much.
- TickleSteve 7y agoThe website does not implement what it advocates: - Scroll bar on left.. why? - superfluous links - messy typography - overly contrasty colour scheme.
- chacha2 7y agoPlus a javascript pop-up that shows when you highlight text with an option to copy the selection. Isn't that what the right click menu is for?
- sibane 7y agoI'm going to be honest, one thing I wish we could leave behind as we enter the 2020s is this obsession with flat/material and minimalist design as some kind of profound one size fits all design ethos that you can build your entire professional self around. Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of occasions where so-called minimalist layouts are perfectly appropriate. Most of the lessons at the core of it are absolutely fundamental to design. And what it replaced, the very brief period of corporate skeuomorphic design was never that great and in my opinion had much more to do with companies wanting to showoff their fancy new technology than designing anything great in its own right. However, I despair when I think of the amount of young designers who know nothing else and can barely imagine a life without the strict framework of minimalism and its accepted practices. They will never know the feeling of going off the beaten path and discovering something cool and valuable, because your inner minimalist has long since shot down that line of thought as frivolous self-indulgence. Only minimalist self-indulgence is accepted. I'm sure most people here can agree that the web is kind of in a sad state right now. We're using staggering amounts of man-hours to run this thing. An enormous bloated stack of technologies maintained by a horde of programmers just so that designers can spend their days meticulously handcrafting minimalist websites that pretty much look the same and do the same thing, while being far heavier than they have any reason to be. I can appreciate the programmers who build perfectly optimized "programmer minimalist" personal websites, but at the end of the day, I think that just amounts to a lot of really nice sandcastles. How do we translate that to the real world? I'm hoping 2020s could be a decade when people get real about moving forward. Less aping of aesthetics and technologies from the 60s and 70s. More of productive experimentation, like in the 60s and 70s.
- rchaud 7y agoThe article doesn't say anything about considering the needs of your users. It's a design choice unencumbered by the realities of your business. Google's home page. What is this, 1999? Users spend just as much time on Youtube as they do on Google, and YT's interface is the opposite of "minimal". Even Google's SERP is littered with ads, and they're shown inline with regular search results.