5 ms·

Sorry, that's not minimalism. gwern.net isn't either; I'd call that "brutalism" instead. THIS is minimalism: https://manuel.kiessling.net https://manuel.kiessl

Sorry, that's not minimalism. gwern.net isn't either; I'd call that "brutalism" instead. THIS is minimalism: https://manuel.kiessling.net https://manuel.kiessling.net Precisely in the sense of "NOT a lot going on at all times". Just the content, presented pleasently. And importantly, it's not only minimalism in look-and-feel, but also technically: even a long post with an embedded image like https://manuel.kiessling.net/2021/05/02/tutorial-react-single-page-applications-spa-with-a-serverless-aws-api-gateway-and-lambda-and-dynamodb-backend-and-terraform-infrastructure-as-code/ https://manuel.kiessling.net/2021/05/02/tutorial-react-singl... weighs in at under 200 KiB. Loads in under 3 seconds even on "slow 3G" in Chrome. 362 milliseconds via my office's wifi. Also, no JavaScript. Nothing moves or jumps. Perfectly usable and consumable in a CLI browser like Lynx. All of that without looking brutalist.

hypertele-Xii 5y ago
The site you link is nearly identical to mine, only less visually-oriented (which I feel is excusable as my site focuses on visual arts, not programming). > Just the content, presented pleasently. Please explain which part of my site isn't just the content, presented pleasantly? > minimalism in look-and-feel, but also technically [...] weighs in at under 200 KiB The exact page I linked to [0] weighs 160 KiB, less than your example. I'm confused about you bringing that up. I win? [0] https://hypertele.fi/ec997be8c5933e87 https://hypertele.fi/ec997be8c5933e87
- retSava 5y ago
  I can add to antiframe's feedback, by saying that I agree with them. The text is rather hard to read to me (without repeating antiframe's points). Also, on the CV page, the text is going back and forth - first on the left side, then right, then middle, and there's pictures here and there that adds to the visual cognitive noise. The bar on the right also has two icons that doesn't seem to do anything (save, next). Finally, as a non-native english speaker to another, I respectfully add that the tone of your comments come across as a bit confrontative, which together with seemingly strongly held opinions and seemingly not very open to feedback, makes me hesitant to engage in this discussion. Perhaps you are not aware of this, so I just wanted to in the most best-meaning manner I can point it out to you.
- antiframe 5y ago
  > Please explain which part of my site isn't just the content, presented pleasantly? I'm not the person you asked, so forgive my jumping in here, but I feel I have a helpful answer. Design serves function. The function of a website with text is to be read. Your site's design is hard and unpleasant to read. Here's what made it difficult for me to parse and read your page: 1. The title looked like a banner offering a newsletter or cookie preferences. I ignored it. My eyes jumped to the subheadings "router" and "template". It took me too long to discern what I was reading. At first I thought it was a list of blog posts titled "router" and "template". 2. The white, thin text on black background was difficult to read. My astigmatism makes dark on light a strong preference for me. Light on dark can be okay if the font has enough weight to minimize deformation of the letter forms. Here you chose a very thin font. 3. The ragged left edge of each paragraph is harder to scan. The return sweep took longer. It is also reminiscent of poetry which felt out of place. 4. The bright background lines drew my eye in a downward on the right and upward on the left, further making the return sweep less comfortable. It is brighter than the text and nagging at my peripheral vision. 5. The text in the comment box was too low contrast to be comfortable. 6. The right menu was invisible to me until I was critically looking over the design. It was very stylistic and striking. Aesthetically good. But these design choices are at odds with the functionality of reading, at least for me.
  - hypertele-Xii 5y ago
    > The title looked like a banner offering a newsletter or cookie preferences That's a problem with other sites though isn't it? > My astigmatism makes dark on light a strong preference for me You can find accessibility-enhancing browser extensions. I use one for the exact opposite myself, to turn bright sites into dark ones. Can't account for every disability. > It is also reminiscent of poetry which felt out of place Great! My site has lots of poetry. Not out of place at all. > The text in the comment box was too low contrast to be comfortable Thanks, I've suspected this to be the case. Will address.
    - antiframe 5y ago
      > That's a problem with other sites though isn't it? I think of design as being done in a context. Few websites use green to indicate a toggle has been turned off and red to indicate a toggle has been turned on because most websites use green to indicate on or go and red to indicate off or stop. Websites are designed in that cultural context where that makes sense (there are cultures in which it's not those colors). I wouldn't expect for a website to buck that context and then say it was a problem with other websites and not the one that's deviating from norms. Toast banners being colorful on white or black backgrounds is a design language I see all over the place. It's the context of the web. So when I encountered a colorful banner on a black field, my eyes ignored it (based on their experience elsewhere before I browsed to your site) and traveled elsewhere first. It was only when I became confused by the contents elsewhere did I take a second, closer look at the top and realized what I was reading. Not a big deal really, but I wanted to share this one reader's experience with first impressions. > You can find accessibility-enhancing browser extensions. I use one for the exact opposite myself, to turn bright sites into dark ones. Can't account for every disability. No, you cannot. I don't expect sites to. I have a custom CSS I use to improve readability when it's low. But, I have noticed that many sites that are white text on dark backgrounds are reasonably readable when they choose fonts that have some weight to them. Face weight is the lever there. If you wanted to, you could increase the weight of your font a smidgen and provide a good experience to both people with astigmatism and people who prefer dark color schemes. But design choices are personal and you can keep it nice and thin too. Again, I was sharing my first impression on readability. > Great! My site has lots of poetry. Not out of place at all. Maybe it's not out of place, but I didn't see any poetry on that page. It was a colophon. If it was meant to be poetic, it went over my head. But, I am a mere student of poetry. Not a poet myself. As I mentioned, I like the look of your site. I find some of the design choices to hinder readability which I value over aesthetics. Design is about finding that balance between aesthetics and functionality and not everyone agrees on where that balance should fall. I was not the only one who found that some of the design choices distracted from the content or made the content harder to read. Now you know and can do or not do what you will with that information. But saying that your readers are "wrong" is an odd way to go about it.
notafraudster 5y ago
Your site is great (and minimalist) -- honestly, really really very good job. One note: in general there's a UX recommendation not to use flags when you mean languages. http://www.flagsarenotlanguages.com/blog/ http://www.flagsarenotlanguages.com/blog/ I'm not exactly sure the best way to solve this for your blog. Maybe something like adding alt-text to indicate "German Language" and adding a parenthetical to the end of titles "(German)" or something?
- ManuelKiessling 5y ago
  Very good point, and I've thought about this a lot. Still not sure what the best solution is... there is also a "flag-mashup" of the Austrian, Swiss, and German flag, but that's looking weird, too. Maybe a combination: a small icon with the three flags in one row, and underneath, the text "German post".
  - PolygonSheep 5y ago
    Do the posts in German really need an indication that they are written in the German language? Just from the title I can immediately see that "Die Metapher der Stadt für das Bauen und Betreiben von Softwareprodukten" is definitely not going to be in English. I assume readers fluent in German don't need to be told that post is in German, the same way I don't need a little UK or US flag to know "March 2018 Book Recommendations" is in English. If you can read the title and introduction you will immediately know which language its written in with no need for flags at all.
  - enriquto 5y ago
    > a small icon with the three flags this does not address the main problem that flags do not correspond to languages. German is spoken in more than "the three" countries, and in these countries there are more languages than German. Thus, using flags is insensitive and alienating to German speakers from other countries (e.g., Belgium), and non-German speakers from these three countries (e.g., Lugano). And this is just for German! The situation is even more complicated for nearly all other languages in the world. Please, never use flags of states to identify languages. I have been on the receiving end of this unnecessarily offensive thing, and it did not feel nice.
chanc3e 5y ago
This is lovely looking, quick to load and easy to read. Props. Take notes people!

hypertele-Xii 5y ago

The site you link is nearly identical to mine, only less visually-oriented (which I feel is excusable as my site focuses on visual arts, not programming). > Just the content, presented pleasently. Please explain which part of my site isn't just the content, presented pleasantly? > minimalism in look-and-feel, but also technically [...] weighs in at under 200 KiB The exact page I linked to [0] weighs 160 KiB, less than your example. I'm confused about you bringing that up. I win? [0] https://hypertele.fi/ec997be8c5933e87 https://hypertele.fi/ec997be8c5933e87

retSava 5y ago
I can add to antiframe's feedback, by saying that I agree with them. The text is rather hard to read to me (without repeating antiframe's points). Also, on the CV page, the text is going back and forth - first on the left side, then right, then middle, and there's pictures here and there that adds to the visual cognitive noise. The bar on the right also has two icons that doesn't seem to do anything (save, next). Finally, as a non-native english speaker to another, I respectfully add that the tone of your comments come across as a bit confrontative, which together with seemingly strongly held opinions and seemingly not very open to feedback, makes me hesitant to engage in this discussion. Perhaps you are not aware of this, so I just wanted to in the most best-meaning manner I can point it out to you.
antiframe 5y ago
> Please explain which part of my site isn't just the content, presented pleasantly? I'm not the person you asked, so forgive my jumping in here, but I feel I have a helpful answer. Design serves function. The function of a website with text is to be read. Your site's design is hard and unpleasant to read. Here's what made it difficult for me to parse and read your page: 1. The title looked like a banner offering a newsletter or cookie preferences. I ignored it. My eyes jumped to the subheadings "router" and "template". It took me too long to discern what I was reading. At first I thought it was a list of blog posts titled "router" and "template". 2. The white, thin text on black background was difficult to read. My astigmatism makes dark on light a strong preference for me. Light on dark can be okay if the font has enough weight to minimize deformation of the letter forms. Here you chose a very thin font. 3. The ragged left edge of each paragraph is harder to scan. The return sweep took longer. It is also reminiscent of poetry which felt out of place. 4. The bright background lines drew my eye in a downward on the right and upward on the left, further making the return sweep less comfortable. It is brighter than the text and nagging at my peripheral vision. 5. The text in the comment box was too low contrast to be comfortable. 6. The right menu was invisible to me until I was critically looking over the design. It was very stylistic and striking. Aesthetically good. But these design choices are at odds with the functionality of reading, at least for me.
- hypertele-Xii 5y ago
  > The title looked like a banner offering a newsletter or cookie preferences That's a problem with other sites though isn't it? > My astigmatism makes dark on light a strong preference for me You can find accessibility-enhancing browser extensions. I use one for the exact opposite myself, to turn bright sites into dark ones. Can't account for every disability. > It is also reminiscent of poetry which felt out of place Great! My site has lots of poetry. Not out of place at all. > The text in the comment box was too low contrast to be comfortable Thanks, I've suspected this to be the case. Will address.
  - antiframe 5y ago
    > That's a problem with other sites though isn't it? I think of design as being done in a context. Few websites use green to indicate a toggle has been turned off and red to indicate a toggle has been turned on because most websites use green to indicate on or go and red to indicate off or stop. Websites are designed in that cultural context where that makes sense (there are cultures in which it's not those colors). I wouldn't expect for a website to buck that context and then say it was a problem with other websites and not the one that's deviating from norms. Toast banners being colorful on white or black backgrounds is a design language I see all over the place. It's the context of the web. So when I encountered a colorful banner on a black field, my eyes ignored it (based on their experience elsewhere before I browsed to your site) and traveled elsewhere first. It was only when I became confused by the contents elsewhere did I take a second, closer look at the top and realized what I was reading. Not a big deal really, but I wanted to share this one reader's experience with first impressions. > You can find accessibility-enhancing browser extensions. I use one for the exact opposite myself, to turn bright sites into dark ones. Can't account for every disability. No, you cannot. I don't expect sites to. I have a custom CSS I use to improve readability when it's low. But, I have noticed that many sites that are white text on dark backgrounds are reasonably readable when they choose fonts that have some weight to them. Face weight is the lever there. If you wanted to, you could increase the weight of your font a smidgen and provide a good experience to both people with astigmatism and people who prefer dark color schemes. But design choices are personal and you can keep it nice and thin too. Again, I was sharing my first impression on readability. > Great! My site has lots of poetry. Not out of place at all. Maybe it's not out of place, but I didn't see any poetry on that page. It was a colophon. If it was meant to be poetic, it went over my head. But, I am a mere student of poetry. Not a poet myself. As I mentioned, I like the look of your site. I find some of the design choices to hinder readability which I value over aesthetics. Design is about finding that balance between aesthetics and functionality and not everyone agrees on where that balance should fall. I was not the only one who found that some of the design choices distracted from the content or made the content harder to read. Now you know and can do or not do what you will with that information. But saying that your readers are "wrong" is an odd way to go about it.

notafraudster 5y ago

Your site is great (and minimalist) -- honestly, really really very good job. One note: in general there's a UX recommendation not to use flags when you mean languages. http://www.flagsarenotlanguages.com/blog/ http://www.flagsarenotlanguages.com/blog/ I'm not exactly sure the best way to solve this for your blog. Maybe something like adding alt-text to indicate "German Language" and adding a parenthetical to the end of titles "(German)" or something?

ManuelKiessling 5y ago
Very good point, and I've thought about this a lot. Still not sure what the best solution is... there is also a "flag-mashup" of the Austrian, Swiss, and German flag, but that's looking weird, too. Maybe a combination: a small icon with the three flags in one row, and underneath, the text "German post".
- PolygonSheep 5y ago
  Do the posts in German really need an indication that they are written in the German language? Just from the title I can immediately see that "Die Metapher der Stadt für das Bauen und Betreiben von Softwareprodukten" is definitely not going to be in English. I assume readers fluent in German don't need to be told that post is in German, the same way I don't need a little UK or US flag to know "March 2018 Book Recommendations" is in English. If you can read the title and introduction you will immediately know which language its written in with no need for flags at all.
- enriquto 5y ago
  > a small icon with the three flags this does not address the main problem that flags do not correspond to languages. German is spoken in more than "the three" countries, and in these countries there are more languages than German. Thus, using flags is insensitive and alienating to German speakers from other countries (e.g., Belgium), and non-German speakers from these three countries (e.g., Lugano). And this is just for German! The situation is even more complicated for nearly all other languages in the world. Please, never use flags of states to identify languages. I have been on the receiving end of this unnecessarily offensive thing, and it did not feel nice.

chanc3e 5y ago

This is lovely looking, quick to load and easy to read. Props. Take notes people!