6 ms·

I disagree wholeheartedly. This site breaks every UI/UX rule in the book, and in the worst ways. Instead of just letting people read the information at their ow

by bryans 5y ago

I disagree wholeheartedly. This site breaks every UI/UX rule in the book, and in the worst ways. Instead of just letting people read the information at their own pace, they've decided to limit the information to one partial sentence at a time, and more than half of those sentences are just irrelevant jokes. Possibly even worse is the lack of snapping to the sentence, which means the user has to guess how far they need to scroll to fit the text in the available space. The text is even so large that some sentences don't fit in that space. It becomes a seemingly endless loop of reading 6 words, scrolling, reading 8 words, scrolling too far and then scrolling up, reading a 5 word joke, scrolling not far enough, etc. In fact, it's 39 mouse wheel scrolls to get to the bottom of the page, all to read one paragraph of actual information -- and that information is mostly a bunch of boisterous posturing, in order to make a pitch that amounts to a couple of prescribed patterns.

mirzap 5y ago
Well, on a first page without any scroll you have action buttons which leads you to the pages where you can read at your own pace. For people who don't want that they've put small bits of information on each scroll. Every information is carefully chosen, so you keep scrolling and reading. After that you go to the doc to read more. I've never seen better UI/UX that hook me in so quickly. If it was just regular page I would think "ah, just another framework" and close the tab. This is is how UI/UX should be done. Bravo!
- bryans 5y ago
  > Well, on a first page without any scroll you have action buttons which leads you to the pages where you can read at your own pace. For people who don't want that they've put small bits of information on each scroll. You're reversing the series of events. A user visiting a page (especially a homepage) expects it to offer relevant information in an easily consumable way. It is impossible for a user to automagically intuit that they can get more easily consumable information on a separate page, just because a link to that page exists. So, what you're suggesting is that it's good UX to make the homepage so annoying that multiple pages are required to provide the same information. That's called an anti-pattern, and really makes that nearly 1MB page load (and 80kB loading gif) a complete waste of time and electricity. Even worse is that the feature information doesn't actually exist outside of the homepage, so you're making an incorrect assertion that people who don't want to scroll can instead just click a button. > Every information is carefully chosen, so you keep scrolling and reading. After that you go to the doc to read more. In this case especially, the information is the exact opposite of carefully chosen. It is chock full of jokes and irrelevant "aren't we cool" posturing, which comes across as pure "tech bro" and does a terrible job of convincing someone why they should use and trust this framework as a foundation for their product. > I've never seen better UI/UX that hook me in so quickly. If it was just regular page I would think "ah, just another framework" and close the tab. A bizarre statement. You're admitting to be willingly manipulated by style over substance, and that you have a premeditation for not actually reading a site's content unless they've met some arbitrary level of flashiness. If a project manager asked you to research frameworks, and your response was to supply them with a list of homepages that you thought "looked the coolest," you'd be fired on the spot.
  - mirzap 5y ago
    I'm really glad I'm not working with UI/UX and project managers that you think would do that. Everything you stated is just your opinion (phrases like "anti-pattern" or "bad UX", "style over substance"), and that's fine. I don't find this homepage annoying. It's the opposite. I find it very informative. I'll for sure get involved with remix thanks to the great presentation and first impression they had on me. I'm doing web development and UI/UX for some time, same as people who build this (I didn't even know who built this until now). And it checks every mark in my UI/UX book. Shared with my peers (devs, PO and designers), all think the same. Great UX.
    - bryans 5y ago
      > I'm really glad I'm not working with UI/UX and project managers that you think would do that. And I'm glad that I don't work with your project managers, who apparently think that choosing frameworks based on a homepage's arbitrarily "cool" presentation is appropriate methodology. > Everything you stated is just your opinion (phrases like "anti-pattern" or "bad UX", "style over substance"), and that's fine. Yes, when somebody says something, it's their opinion -- not sure what point you're even trying to make here, honestly. However, I provided you with specific reasons for those opinions based on decades of published research by countless developers and psychologists. Intentionally slowing down information consumption IS an anti-pattern. Making people scroll dozens of times to read one total paragraph IS bad UX. Limiting information in favor of animations IS style over substance. Whereas your entire argument is based around the presentation "looking cool," which is an opinion not even shared by the vast majority of commenters in this thread. > I'm doing web development and UI/UX for some time, same as people who build this (I didn't even know who built this until now). And it checks every mark in my UI/UX book. You appear to be asserting that "you know better" because you're a web developer. However, I've been a web developer for 25 years, so your attempted posturing doesn't win you any points here. Also, there are literal books on UI/UX -- tons of them, actually -- and they all disagree with your imaginary book. > Shared with my peers (devs, PO and designers), all think the same. Great UX. To show you how silly that argument is, I just shared this page with some folks -- three developers and two designers, all of whom have been in the industry for a minimum of a decade -- and asked them to give me a quick <5 word impression of the site. These are their responses: "Page loads already scrolled to the bottom. Is that what it's supposed to do?" "some shitty designers wet dream from 10 years ago" "LOL - this is bad." "stopped reading at: (What the heck does event.preventDefault do anyway?)" "Garbage."
gherkinnn 5y ago
Think of it as a video but you scroll through it. It’s really not that novel a concept.
- bryans 5y ago
  I never said it was a novel concept or that the functionality is confusing. I just said that it's terrible, which it absolutely is, and your video comparison actually reinforces my point. They could have made this presentation into a 30 second video, which would have extremely simplified the access to information, while also only requiring one click, and still providing the ability to pause the flow of information when necessary. Instead, the page takes 39 manual scrolls to read through a bunch of tech bro jokes.
  - Kiro 5y ago
    That's just your opinion. I think it's awesome and if it really "breaks every UI/UX rule in the book" it's a great example of how breaking the rules can be a good thing.
    - bryans 5y ago
      I'd love to hear exactly why you think it's "awesome" and "a good thing" to force users to scroll an entire window height in order to read part of one sentence. The reality is that they could have produced this same concept in a way that doesn't force such extreme interaction to consume very minimal content, resulting in the same "awesomeness" without wasting the user's time or energy.
      - Kiro 5y ago
        Sounds like you just can't accept the fact that people like it.
        archeroe 5y ago
        Sounds like you can't respond to a simple question and prefer Ad hominem. "It's awesome" has never been a proper justification.
areeh 5y ago
I can see how it scores poorly on the number of scrolls per paragraph of information, maximum words read per unit of time, etc, but clearly that is intended with the choice of spacing and font size which is different in the docs (typically optimized for providing information, similar to what your metrics seem to try to measure). I think it is more usefully analyzed as a landing page, with a lot of emphasis on how it looks, at the deliberate tradeoff of the text being harder to access. On the practical side, personally I'd expect to find docs, getting started, and source repo which I found immediately. Some surprises though: I didn't notice the scroll until after looking at links (intended?). The way some elements disappeared if you scrolled just slightly past them entering the page. I didn't find the scroll jacking surprising after first seeing it, I read it as "not a normal text document" shortly after. Of course you might in the end not care for the visual side, or not expect it to come at such a great expense in terms of scroll # or similar metrics. I think that's a risk they take with this kind of page. edit: typo
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

by bryans 5y ago

mirzap 5y ago

Well, on a first page without any scroll you have action buttons which leads you to the pages where you can read at your own pace. For people who don't want that they've put small bits of information on each scroll. Every information is carefully chosen, so you keep scrolling and reading. After that you go to the doc to read more. I've never seen better UI/UX that hook me in so quickly. If it was just regular page I would think "ah, just another framework" and close the tab. This is is how UI/UX should be done. Bravo!

bryans 5y ago
> Well, on a first page without any scroll you have action buttons which leads you to the pages where you can read at your own pace. For people who don't want that they've put small bits of information on each scroll. You're reversing the series of events. A user visiting a page (especially a homepage) expects it to offer relevant information in an easily consumable way. It is impossible for a user to automagically intuit that they can get more easily consumable information on a separate page, just because a link to that page exists. So, what you're suggesting is that it's good UX to make the homepage so annoying that multiple pages are required to provide the same information. That's called an anti-pattern, and really makes that nearly 1MB page load (and 80kB loading gif) a complete waste of time and electricity. Even worse is that the feature information doesn't actually exist outside of the homepage, so you're making an incorrect assertion that people who don't want to scroll can instead just click a button. > Every information is carefully chosen, so you keep scrolling and reading. After that you go to the doc to read more. In this case especially, the information is the exact opposite of carefully chosen. It is chock full of jokes and irrelevant "aren't we cool" posturing, which comes across as pure "tech bro" and does a terrible job of convincing someone why they should use and trust this framework as a foundation for their product. > I've never seen better UI/UX that hook me in so quickly. If it was just regular page I would think "ah, just another framework" and close the tab. A bizarre statement. You're admitting to be willingly manipulated by style over substance, and that you have a premeditation for not actually reading a site's content unless they've met some arbitrary level of flashiness. If a project manager asked you to research frameworks, and your response was to supply them with a list of homepages that you thought "looked the coolest," you'd be fired on the spot.
- mirzap 5y ago
  I'm really glad I'm not working with UI/UX and project managers that you think would do that. Everything you stated is just your opinion (phrases like "anti-pattern" or "bad UX", "style over substance"), and that's fine. I don't find this homepage annoying. It's the opposite. I find it very informative. I'll for sure get involved with remix thanks to the great presentation and first impression they had on me. I'm doing web development and UI/UX for some time, same as people who build this (I didn't even know who built this until now). And it checks every mark in my UI/UX book. Shared with my peers (devs, PO and designers), all think the same. Great UX.
  - bryans 5y ago
    > I'm really glad I'm not working with UI/UX and project managers that you think would do that. And I'm glad that I don't work with your project managers, who apparently think that choosing frameworks based on a homepage's arbitrarily "cool" presentation is appropriate methodology. > Everything you stated is just your opinion (phrases like "anti-pattern" or "bad UX", "style over substance"), and that's fine. Yes, when somebody says something, it's their opinion -- not sure what point you're even trying to make here, honestly. However, I provided you with specific reasons for those opinions based on decades of published research by countless developers and psychologists. Intentionally slowing down information consumption IS an anti-pattern. Making people scroll dozens of times to read one total paragraph IS bad UX. Limiting information in favor of animations IS style over substance. Whereas your entire argument is based around the presentation "looking cool," which is an opinion not even shared by the vast majority of commenters in this thread. > I'm doing web development and UI/UX for some time, same as people who build this (I didn't even know who built this until now). And it checks every mark in my UI/UX book. You appear to be asserting that "you know better" because you're a web developer. However, I've been a web developer for 25 years, so your attempted posturing doesn't win you any points here. Also, there are literal books on UI/UX -- tons of them, actually -- and they all disagree with your imaginary book. > Shared with my peers (devs, PO and designers), all think the same. Great UX. To show you how silly that argument is, I just shared this page with some folks -- three developers and two designers, all of whom have been in the industry for a minimum of a decade -- and asked them to give me a quick <5 word impression of the site. These are their responses: "Page loads already scrolled to the bottom. Is that what it's supposed to do?" "some shitty designers wet dream from 10 years ago" "LOL - this is bad." "stopped reading at: (What the heck does event.preventDefault do anyway?)" "Garbage."

gherkinnn 5y ago

Think of it as a video but you scroll through it. It’s really not that novel a concept.

bryans 5y ago
I never said it was a novel concept or that the functionality is confusing. I just said that it's terrible, which it absolutely is, and your video comparison actually reinforces my point. They could have made this presentation into a 30 second video, which would have extremely simplified the access to information, while also only requiring one click, and still providing the ability to pause the flow of information when necessary. Instead, the page takes 39 manual scrolls to read through a bunch of tech bro jokes.
- Kiro 5y ago
  That's just your opinion. I think it's awesome and if it really "breaks every UI/UX rule in the book" it's a great example of how breaking the rules can be a good thing.
  - bryans 5y ago
    I'd love to hear exactly why you think it's "awesome" and "a good thing" to force users to scroll an entire window height in order to read part of one sentence. The reality is that they could have produced this same concept in a way that doesn't force such extreme interaction to consume very minimal content, resulting in the same "awesomeness" without wasting the user's time or energy.
    - Kiro 5y ago
      Sounds like you just can't accept the fact that people like it.
      - archeroe 5y ago
        Sounds like you can't respond to a simple question and prefer Ad hominem. "It's awesome" has never been a proper justification.

areeh 5y ago

I can see how it scores poorly on the number of scrolls per paragraph of information, maximum words read per unit of time, etc, but clearly that is intended with the choice of spacing and font size which is different in the docs (typically optimized for providing information, similar to what your metrics seem to try to measure). I think it is more usefully analyzed as a landing page, with a lot of emphasis on how it looks, at the deliberate tradeoff of the text being harder to access. On the practical side, personally I'd expect to find docs, getting started, and source repo which I found immediately. Some surprises though: I didn't notice the scroll until after looking at links (intended?). The way some elements disappeared if you scrolled just slightly past them entering the page. I didn't find the scroll jacking surprising after first seeing it, I read it as "not a normal text document" shortly after. Of course you might in the end not care for the visual side, or not expect it to come at such a great expense in terms of scroll # or similar metrics. I think that's a risk they take with this kind of page. edit: typo

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]