6 ms·

The practical lesson here is, as always: be extremely wealthy. No matter what you do, people will think it is profoundly smart.

oefrha 6y ago
Exactly. Pretty sure however berkshirehathaway.com is deigned builtin.com will find genius in it. Meanwhile, thousands upon thousands of unadorned personal websites (including that of yours truly), especially in academic circles, or websites of old-school software projects look just like this masterpiece.
- JakeTheAndroid 6y ago
  I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you expect builtin to find your personal site for this writeup? Does your site have the same purpose and is it being consumed the same way as BH? Can builtin know that your site design is effectively for the consumers that visit the site? Whereas with BH, they can be sure that this page gets used as BH has a wide net of consumers that'd need to leverage this site. If this design was a major blocked to business effectivity, BH has enough money to change it. The fact that they haven't suggests it's at least good enough.
  - oefrha 6y ago
    What I’m saying is this is just the boring old way of writing websites and it’s still widely practiced today, there’s hardly any genius in it, nor is it a masterpiece. Also, your argument that any company with enough money to fix a dysfunctional website must have a good enough website is kinda laughable.
tootie 6y ago
It's not just that, it's also notoriety and reputation. No one is going to that site to learn what BH is and what it has to offer. They don't care about any SEO beyond people searching "Berkshire Hathaway". They're not a B2C brand. They are not converting sales. They are not creating Brand Halo. It's basically just their federally-mandated SEC filings.
- brayhite 6y ago
  isn't that the point the author is making? they're suggesting that a website that most average internet folks would say is terrible/ugly/bad/etc is actually nearly perfect when looking through the lens of "who does this website serve". it feels a bit naive to shrug this off as "elite wealthy people getting their ego boosted". where are the articles praising Jeff Bezos' "expeditions" website[0], or Bill Gates' personal blog[1]? [0] https://www.bezosexpeditions.com/ https://www.bezosexpeditions.com/ [1] https://www.gatesnotes.com/ https://www.gatesnotes.com/
  - Invictus0 6y ago
    It's hardly a masterclass though, and it wasn't designed that way because Warren Buffet carefully thought about it and decided this was the best way to do it. He just decided to put effectively 0 effort into the website and ended up with a basic HTML file that perhaps wasn't all that out of place in 1990.
    - robocat 6y ago
      Perhaps that is the masterclass: not wasting time and effort where it isn’t needed. I have seen that pattern in successful people, focusing on the right things and knowing what to ignore. Disclaimer: I’m a yak shaver, I’ll waste immense time on “perfecting“ something irrelevant.
    - signal11 6y ago
      Yes —- for instance, it’s not very mobile friendly.
  - weare138 6y ago
    But check out the page's source. The site isn't so much a "master class in design" as it is a page that was made in the 90's and has never been updated. Back then this was how almost every webpage looked. It's still using tables for layout. Based on the MSHTML generator tag, it was most likely made in MS FrontPage.
ardy42 6y ago
Kinda sorta. I think this is more a case that extreme wealth and prestige has lessened the pressure to follow what are arguably dumb trends. Berkshire Hathaway's website is smart (in relative terms), but not because Berkshire Hathaway is smart.
mywittyname 6y ago
Out of curiosity, what do people think the social version of this? I've noticed that certain people can say nearly anything and people will gush all over it, even when it's clearly foolish or someone else said the same thing just 10 minutes previous.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- oefrha 6y ago
  Case study: a certain pg essay and recent discussion on HN. ducks
  - bschne 6y ago
    If you want to criticize an essay/oppinion to make a point, just refer to it by name and state why you think it supports the argument you're trying to make
    - WilliamEdward 6y ago
      That's dangerous to do here when the essay in question is written by someone with a massive cult following.
      - _curious_ 6y ago
        What's is dangerous about it?
    - oefrha 6y ago
      This was just a little swipe, I didn’t intend to go deep into it, and actually planned to delete the comment after a few minutes. Of course that plan was foiled by your reply.
    - jdashg 6y ago
      That's not always necessary, and it's a good way to get dragged down into quibbling. The GP rings true to me, even though I'm not sure precisely which of the PG essays they most had in mind.
rakoo 6y ago
I see a different lesson, perhaps not one that is very kind: content always beats form. Visual bells and whistles don't provide anything if relevant content is not also present. Those bells and whistles might even be an impediment to getting to the information, which means it's sometimes best left out. I'm obviously biased in this interpretation, because I tend to favour low-bandwidth version of websites as much as I can, such as using the no-javascript version of facebook (m.facebook.com) where there is much less actual interaction than facebook wants, or using an alternate twitter client (nitter.net) because I just want to read the content, not wait for javascript to load and execute if I'm not even going to interact. Just look at Hacker News: isn't that supposed to be laughable in 2020's web design world ? And yet we're all using it because, beyond being centered on content, it's _fast_ The side effect of aiming for no javascript is that the content is more easily reachable: there's no need to wander into endless menus and animations that bring no value, because everything is there already. I feel it's a lesson that more designers should apply.
- dfw99 6y ago
  i totally agree with you. it's hilarious that someone would try to argue with the article's main point on a platform that basically proves the point.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  Is there any necessary connection between visual roughness or a "90s look" and low bandwidth or speed? Seems to me you can have a lot of javascript and CSS in a few KB, and what bogs down modern web pages has to be frameworks and advertising. Although I'm not and never have been a web dev.
  - rakoo 6y ago
    For sure you can have a slick website with javascript and CSS that doesn't slow down the page because of all the tricks like loading/caching/prerending/whatever magic is available. But that's the thing: it requires work, which means you have to be very good at it, or select the correct tools to do it and depend on them; in the case of companies website, you most likely are pressured to cram yet another feature that is extremely urgent yet there's no budget for making the site fast. Sometimes developers don't even care because it's fast enough to them. Some other times they do care, and they come up with excellent initiatives like 2G Tuesdays (https://engineering.fb.com/networking-traffic/building-for-emerging-markets-the-story-behind-2g-tuesdays/ https://engineering.fb.com/networking-traffic/building-for-e...) So yeah, doing a 90s' style website is not necessary to have a fast website, but it's impossible to have a slow website. But it's true that a very minimum amount of CSS can totally change the look of your site without being bloated: see for example the Best Motherfucking Website (https://bestmotherfucking.website/ https://bestmotherfucking.website/)
ajhurliman 6y ago
Counter point: Craigslist also has very simplistic, human-centered design that they get praised for and they are not rich at all.
- csallen 6y ago
  Craigslist makes oodles of money. But I still think the post you're responding to is too cynical (shocking on HN, I know). One author on one website praised Berkshire Hathaway's website. So what? Plenty of people on plenty of other websites praise mediocre things created by non-rich people all the time.
- freehunter 6y ago
  Basically the lesson is, if you’re providing a valuable service to your users, it doesn’t matter how your website looks. If users leave your site because of how it looks, then you’re not serving them. If users go to your site in spite of not looking terribly good, then you’re providing a valuable service (and that service is not “web design”).
- snowwrestler 6y ago
  Craiglist absolutely gets praised because they have been so successful with that design. There are plenty of websites that looked like Craigslist but were not as successful, and you won't see them in thought leadership blog posts in 2020. Also, Craiglist has evolved their site quite a bit and at this point their "design" is no longer a matter of simplicity, but essentially a visual aesthetic that they maintain as a matter of branding and culture, kind of like Amazon giving people door-desks long after it became cheaper for them to just buy regular office furniture in bulk.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    Seems like this is more of an argument against over-investing in UI. Just seems like circular logic.
  - Cthulhu_ 6y ago
    Plus, Craigslist couldn't just change their design to something "modern", it'd put people off - people don't like change. Or, people don't like sudden change. It reminds me of a national adverts website over here, Marktplaats; it used to be a very 90's, table-driven lists of links kind of deal with a fugly brown background. But it took off nevertheless, and became a major business that was eventually taken over by Ebay (in 2004). It's very slowly changed its front-end to a more modern facing one. But they made sure to do it slowly. Evolution rather than revolution.
graeme 6y ago
This is a facile take. Here’s another corporate site: https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about.html https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about.html This is for shareholders etc. Suppose you give that page + the berkshire page to a group of shareholders. I’d bet they can find what they need faster on berkshire’s site. And it loads damned fast. Scotia’s is bloated. Moreover, Berkshire shareholders are wealthy. Berkshire has a large portfolio, but Geico is the one product pretty much all of them need (car insurance). There’s a highly visible geico add with a clear call to action right on the home page. That’s no accident (Buffett also mentions it constantly at shareholder meetings and in his popular letters) I genuinely think the Berkshire site is better suited for its purpose than 95% of corporate relations pages.
NoOneNew 6y ago
I don't know, Hackernews is pretty damn ugly as well. People still like the old Reddit design better than the hip/trendy redesign. Simple and straightforward is best when the information is far more valuable than anything else.
vikramkr 6y ago
I second that. Apparently a website that doesnt even bother to be responsive for mobile is a masterclass of design. It's a few links and a geico ad. They clearly dont care about the website. The article mentions that they cant read the minds of the berkshire hathaway website design team to understand their intentions. Do they really think berkshire Hathaway has a design team for this? It's not "designed for shareholders" - shareholders use smartphones to check in on their investments too! Compare this with the website for berkshire Hathaway's three service and see what berkshire can do when they actually care about designing a site: https://threeinsurance.com/ https://threeinsurance.com/

oefrha 6y ago

Exactly. Pretty sure however berkshirehathaway.com is deigned builtin.com will find genius in it. Meanwhile, thousands upon thousands of unadorned personal websites (including that of yours truly), especially in academic circles, or websites of old-school software projects look just like this masterpiece.

JakeTheAndroid 6y ago
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you expect builtin to find your personal site for this writeup? Does your site have the same purpose and is it being consumed the same way as BH? Can builtin know that your site design is effectively for the consumers that visit the site? Whereas with BH, they can be sure that this page gets used as BH has a wide net of consumers that'd need to leverage this site. If this design was a major blocked to business effectivity, BH has enough money to change it. The fact that they haven't suggests it's at least good enough.
- oefrha 6y ago
  What I’m saying is this is just the boring old way of writing websites and it’s still widely practiced today, there’s hardly any genius in it, nor is it a masterpiece. Also, your argument that any company with enough money to fix a dysfunctional website must have a good enough website is kinda laughable.

tootie 6y ago

It's not just that, it's also notoriety and reputation. No one is going to that site to learn what BH is and what it has to offer. They don't care about any SEO beyond people searching "Berkshire Hathaway". They're not a B2C brand. They are not converting sales. They are not creating Brand Halo. It's basically just their federally-mandated SEC filings.

brayhite 6y ago
isn't that the point the author is making? they're suggesting that a website that most average internet folks would say is terrible/ugly/bad/etc is actually nearly perfect when looking through the lens of "who does this website serve". it feels a bit naive to shrug this off as "elite wealthy people getting their ego boosted". where are the articles praising Jeff Bezos' "expeditions" website[0], or Bill Gates' personal blog[1]? [0] https://www.bezosexpeditions.com/ https://www.bezosexpeditions.com/ [1] https://www.gatesnotes.com/ https://www.gatesnotes.com/
- Invictus0 6y ago
  It's hardly a masterclass though, and it wasn't designed that way because Warren Buffet carefully thought about it and decided this was the best way to do it. He just decided to put effectively 0 effort into the website and ended up with a basic HTML file that perhaps wasn't all that out of place in 1990.
  - robocat 6y ago
    Perhaps that is the masterclass: not wasting time and effort where it isn’t needed. I have seen that pattern in successful people, focusing on the right things and knowing what to ignore. Disclaimer: I’m a yak shaver, I’ll waste immense time on “perfecting“ something irrelevant.
  - signal11 6y ago
    Yes —- for instance, it’s not very mobile friendly.
- weare138 6y ago
  But check out the page's source. The site isn't so much a "master class in design" as it is a page that was made in the 90's and has never been updated. Back then this was how almost every webpage looked. It's still using tables for layout. Based on the MSHTML generator tag, it was most likely made in MS FrontPage.

ardy42 6y ago

Kinda sorta. I think this is more a case that extreme wealth and prestige has lessened the pressure to follow what are arguably dumb trends. Berkshire Hathaway's website is smart (in relative terms), but not because Berkshire Hathaway is smart.

mywittyname 6y ago

Out of curiosity, what do people think the social version of this? I've noticed that certain people can say nearly anything and people will gush all over it, even when it's clearly foolish or someone else said the same thing just 10 minutes previous.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
oefrha 6y ago
Case study: a certain pg essay and recent discussion on HN. ducks
- bschne 6y ago
  If you want to criticize an essay/oppinion to make a point, just refer to it by name and state why you think it supports the argument you're trying to make
  - WilliamEdward 6y ago
    That's dangerous to do here when the essay in question is written by someone with a massive cult following.
    - _curious_ 6y ago
      What's is dangerous about it?
  - oefrha 6y ago
    This was just a little swipe, I didn’t intend to go deep into it, and actually planned to delete the comment after a few minutes. Of course that plan was foiled by your reply.
  - jdashg 6y ago
    That's not always necessary, and it's a good way to get dragged down into quibbling. The GP rings true to me, even though I'm not sure precisely which of the PG essays they most had in mind.

rakoo 6y ago

I see a different lesson, perhaps not one that is very kind: content always beats form. Visual bells and whistles don't provide anything if relevant content is not also present. Those bells and whistles might even be an impediment to getting to the information, which means it's sometimes best left out. I'm obviously biased in this interpretation, because I tend to favour low-bandwidth version of websites as much as I can, such as using the no-javascript version of facebook (m.facebook.com) where there is much less actual interaction than facebook wants, or using an alternate twitter client (nitter.net) because I just want to read the content, not wait for javascript to load and execute if I'm not even going to interact. Just look at Hacker News: isn't that supposed to be laughable in 2020's web design world ? And yet we're all using it because, beyond being centered on content, it's _fast_ The side effect of aiming for no javascript is that the content is more easily reachable: there's no need to wander into endless menus and animations that bring no value, because everything is there already. I feel it's a lesson that more designers should apply.

dfw99 6y ago
i totally agree with you. it's hilarious that someone would try to argue with the article's main point on a platform that basically proves the point.
perl4ever 6y ago
Is there any necessary connection between visual roughness or a "90s look" and low bandwidth or speed? Seems to me you can have a lot of javascript and CSS in a few KB, and what bogs down modern web pages has to be frameworks and advertising. Although I'm not and never have been a web dev.
- rakoo 6y ago
  For sure you can have a slick website with javascript and CSS that doesn't slow down the page because of all the tricks like loading/caching/prerending/whatever magic is available. But that's the thing: it requires work, which means you have to be very good at it, or select the correct tools to do it and depend on them; in the case of companies website, you most likely are pressured to cram yet another feature that is extremely urgent yet there's no budget for making the site fast. Sometimes developers don't even care because it's fast enough to them. Some other times they do care, and they come up with excellent initiatives like 2G Tuesdays (https://engineering.fb.com/networking-traffic/building-for-emerging-markets-the-story-behind-2g-tuesdays/ https://engineering.fb.com/networking-traffic/building-for-e...) So yeah, doing a 90s' style website is not necessary to have a fast website, but it's impossible to have a slow website. But it's true that a very minimum amount of CSS can totally change the look of your site without being bloated: see for example the Best Motherfucking Website (https://bestmotherfucking.website/ https://bestmotherfucking.website/)

ajhurliman 6y ago

Counter point: Craigslist also has very simplistic, human-centered design that they get praised for and they are not rich at all.

csallen 6y ago
Craigslist makes oodles of money. But I still think the post you're responding to is too cynical (shocking on HN, I know). One author on one website praised Berkshire Hathaway's website. So what? Plenty of people on plenty of other websites praise mediocre things created by non-rich people all the time.
freehunter 6y ago
Basically the lesson is, if you’re providing a valuable service to your users, it doesn’t matter how your website looks. If users leave your site because of how it looks, then you’re not serving them. If users go to your site in spite of not looking terribly good, then you’re providing a valuable service (and that service is not “web design”).
snowwrestler 6y ago
Craiglist absolutely gets praised because they have been so successful with that design. There are plenty of websites that looked like Craigslist but were not as successful, and you won't see them in thought leadership blog posts in 2020. Also, Craiglist has evolved their site quite a bit and at this point their "design" is no longer a matter of simplicity, but essentially a visual aesthetic that they maintain as a matter of branding and culture, kind of like Amazon giving people door-desks long after it became cheaper for them to just buy regular office furniture in bulk.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  Seems like this is more of an argument against over-investing in UI. Just seems like circular logic.
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  Plus, Craigslist couldn't just change their design to something "modern", it'd put people off - people don't like change. Or, people don't like sudden change. It reminds me of a national adverts website over here, Marktplaats; it used to be a very 90's, table-driven lists of links kind of deal with a fugly brown background. But it took off nevertheless, and became a major business that was eventually taken over by Ebay (in 2004). It's very slowly changed its front-end to a more modern facing one. But they made sure to do it slowly. Evolution rather than revolution.

graeme 6y ago

This is a facile take. Here’s another corporate site: https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about.html https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about.html This is for shareholders etc. Suppose you give that page + the berkshire page to a group of shareholders. I’d bet they can find what they need faster on berkshire’s site. And it loads damned fast. Scotia’s is bloated. Moreover, Berkshire shareholders are wealthy. Berkshire has a large portfolio, but Geico is the one product pretty much all of them need (car insurance). There’s a highly visible geico add with a clear call to action right on the home page. That’s no accident (Buffett also mentions it constantly at shareholder meetings and in his popular letters) I genuinely think the Berkshire site is better suited for its purpose than 95% of corporate relations pages.

NoOneNew 6y ago

I don't know, Hackernews is pretty damn ugly as well. People still like the old Reddit design better than the hip/trendy redesign. Simple and straightforward is best when the information is far more valuable than anything else.

vikramkr 6y ago

I second that. Apparently a website that doesnt even bother to be responsive for mobile is a masterclass of design. It's a few links and a geico ad. They clearly dont care about the website. The article mentions that they cant read the minds of the berkshire hathaway website design team to understand their intentions. Do they really think berkshire Hathaway has a design team for this? It's not "designed for shareholders" - shareholders use smartphones to check in on their investments too! Compare this with the website for berkshire Hathaway's three service and see what berkshire can do when they actually care about designing a site: https://threeinsurance.com/ https://threeinsurance.com/