7 ms·

I’ve never understood hn fascination with boring and ugly plain text sites. Reminds me of the infamous Dropbox comment.

judge2020 6y ago
> Reminds me of the infamous Dropbox comment. For reference: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
Because they are reliable and consistent. This isn't a place where novelty is appropriate, IMHO. The IETF nails it with their RFCs, e.g.: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5545 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5545
- felixfbecker 6y ago
  RFCs have a terrible reading experience. Especially on mobile or on a wide screen.
  - sixstringtheory 6y ago
    You're entitled to your opinion regarding RFC readability, but factually, you can't grep through a video like you can with plaintext. You also can't print out a video and highlight things or write notes in the margins (or do the equivalent with a PDF). Scrubbing back multiple times to catch a quickly spoken word or quickly dismissed graphic is the bane of my experience with such video documentation. To me, that may be a fine superficial introductory experience in some cases, but is a universally terrible one for understanding and reference.
    - thesimon 6y ago
      I don't think anyone would favor a video over a RFC. But already a RFC reader makes it a more pleasant experience than just the raw RFC you linked https://www.rfcreader.com/#rfc5545 https://www.rfcreader.com/#rfc5545
      - tdeck 6y ago
        I'm not a huge fan of text-only but I definitely find the original easier to read than this website's version from a contrast perspective. I can't think why they would choose gray text on a gray background.
      - SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
        Ironically, the fact that the reader is even POSSIBLE is because of the neutral format of the source RFC. You sorta shot yourself in the foot there.
        felixfbecker 6y ago
        It would be just as possible if RFCs were written in HTML, like most web standards are. You probably wouldn't even need a reader at that point, but you could easily customize the styling with CSS (even user CSS with a browser extension) or just use the reading mode of your browser.
        SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
        Now that I consider this, you're right. Semantic HTML was designed exactly for this.
      - sixstringtheory 6y ago
        A couple things here: 1) that RFC reader is alright, but it still isn't good on a phone. If you view the PDF version of any RFC on ietf.org, it has a hyperlinked table of contents, so you don't need a javascript version of it like what rfcreader.com provides, and you can store that PDF offline. You can also hit the TXT version of any RFC and it's passable in Safari's Reader View, I'd say better than rfcreader.com (I also tried Reader View on rfcreader.com and it has other issues, so it's like trading one set of problems for another, but I see no clear winner, so for me the tie breaker goes to ietf.org); 2) the OP made the point that text is preferable to video–I happen to agree–and I was responding to the hyperbolic (and again, subjective) pushback regarding "ugly" text, explaining a way that it is still functionally superior to videos (which can have wildly diverse quality issues of their own); 3) I didn't link the RFC, that was someone else.
    - ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
      Who is using video as documentation in their README? I’ve seen them as a marketing introduction or maybe a conference talk the author gave about the project but certainly nothing like a doc site in a video format
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  I like lightweight minimal styles as much as anyone, but I figure they could have made the PDF a good deal more presentable. I don't see why the PDF should use the Notepad look - one can be too spartan.
wongarsu 6y ago
People who love boring and ugly plain text sites are bound to be over-represented on a forum with an absolutely bare-bones plaintext-like design.
- broberts01 6y ago
  Spittin' facts over here.
chipotle_coyote 6y ago
I agree with you in principle -- the "web sites should never do things like choose their own typefaces, line lengths and line spacing" crowd always makes me sigh. However. We're not talking about web sites here, we're talking about README files. They should be absolutely readable and understandable if you're displaying them in a console -- that's arguably one of the underlying tenets of Markdown as it was originally conceived (e.g., that its source be as easily readable as a plain text email or Usenet message is). I like that GitHub renders Markdown documents, but a lot of time when you're mucking around with source, you're looking at, well, the plain document. I think this is a fun hack to demonstrate how you can do ridiculous things in technically-still-Markdown documents, but it's unequivocally not something anyone should actually do in their Markdown documents. :)

judge2020 6y ago

> Reminds me of the infamous Dropbox comment. For reference: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224

SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago

Because they are reliable and consistent. This isn't a place where novelty is appropriate, IMHO. The IETF nails it with their RFCs, e.g.: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5545 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5545

felixfbecker 6y ago
RFCs have a terrible reading experience. Especially on mobile or on a wide screen.
- sixstringtheory 6y ago
  You're entitled to your opinion regarding RFC readability, but factually, you can't grep through a video like you can with plaintext. You also can't print out a video and highlight things or write notes in the margins (or do the equivalent with a PDF). Scrubbing back multiple times to catch a quickly spoken word or quickly dismissed graphic is the bane of my experience with such video documentation. To me, that may be a fine superficial introductory experience in some cases, but is a universally terrible one for understanding and reference.
  - thesimon 6y ago
    I don't think anyone would favor a video over a RFC. But already a RFC reader makes it a more pleasant experience than just the raw RFC you linked https://www.rfcreader.com/#rfc5545 https://www.rfcreader.com/#rfc5545
    - tdeck 6y ago
      I'm not a huge fan of text-only but I definitely find the original easier to read than this website's version from a contrast perspective. I can't think why they would choose gray text on a gray background.
    - SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
      Ironically, the fact that the reader is even POSSIBLE is because of the neutral format of the source RFC. You sorta shot yourself in the foot there.
      - felixfbecker 6y ago
        It would be just as possible if RFCs were written in HTML, like most web standards are. You probably wouldn't even need a reader at that point, but you could easily customize the styling with CSS (even user CSS with a browser extension) or just use the reading mode of your browser.
        SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
        Now that I consider this, you're right. Semantic HTML was designed exactly for this.
    - sixstringtheory 6y ago
      A couple things here: 1) that RFC reader is alright, but it still isn't good on a phone. If you view the PDF version of any RFC on ietf.org, it has a hyperlinked table of contents, so you don't need a javascript version of it like what rfcreader.com provides, and you can store that PDF offline. You can also hit the TXT version of any RFC and it's passable in Safari's Reader View, I'd say better than rfcreader.com (I also tried Reader View on rfcreader.com and it has other issues, so it's like trading one set of problems for another, but I see no clear winner, so for me the tie breaker goes to ietf.org); 2) the OP made the point that text is preferable to video–I happen to agree–and I was responding to the hyperbolic (and again, subjective) pushback regarding "ugly" text, explaining a way that it is still functionally superior to videos (which can have wildly diverse quality issues of their own); 3) I didn't link the RFC, that was someone else.
  - ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
    Who is using video as documentation in their README? I’ve seen them as a marketing introduction or maybe a conference talk the author gave about the project but certainly nothing like a doc site in a video format
MaxBarraclough 6y ago
I like lightweight minimal styles as much as anyone, but I figure they could have made the PDF a good deal more presentable. I don't see why the PDF should use the Notepad look - one can be too spartan.

wongarsu 6y ago

People who love boring and ugly plain text sites are bound to be over-represented on a forum with an absolutely bare-bones plaintext-like design.

broberts01 6y ago
Spittin' facts over here.

chipotle_coyote 6y ago

I agree with you in principle -- the "web sites should never do things like choose their own typefaces, line lengths and line spacing" crowd always makes me sigh. However. We're not talking about web sites here, we're talking about README files. They should be absolutely readable and understandable if you're displaying them in a console -- that's arguably one of the underlying tenets of Markdown as it was originally conceived (e.g., that its source be as easily readable as a plain text email or Usenet message is). I like that GitHub renders Markdown documents, but a lot of time when you're mucking around with source, you're looking at, well, the plain document. I think this is a fun hack to demonstrate how you can do ridiculous things in technically-still-Markdown documents, but it's unequivocally not something anyone should actually do in their Markdown documents. :)