8 ms·

I sympathise with the main thrust of the post but, to nitpick, this is just plain wrong: > But mostly css appeals to our vanity and ego. Design isn't just abo

I sympathise with the main thrust of the post but, to nitpick, this is just plain wrong: > But mostly css appeals to our vanity and ego. Design isn't just about aesthetics. Good information design, clear visual hierarchy, accessibility, etc. all help with communication. The author's effective use of spacing, bold, and code tags show us that they know this intuitively, despite what they write.

criticalstone 4y ago
I agree, I get the idea that a blog doesn't have to be fancy, but a simple css theme with nice spacing and good font size goes a long way. The examples they show makes me click away instantly, because it is so damn hard to read.
- throwntoday 4y ago
  In his examples the content is so niche the reader is probably willing to put up with no design to get the information.
  - j45 4y ago
    Also possible the typeface is compatible with the readers and the content they regularly consume. Hell, that typeface is something anyone is subjected too if you do anything long enough. The experience of getting to imagine how much thought goes into laying out text on a typewriter is something I think should be for everyone to try at least a few times.
qup 4y ago
As a good example, his site is very readable (because of the limited width of lines), and the sites he linked to that were largely unstyled were very useful, but not very readable. It would be worth it to me, as a user, to use a browser plugin to add a few lines of CSS to those sites before I dove in.
- NoGravitas 4y ago
  The "Stylus" extension does what you need. Turn on "100 bytes of CSS" or a classless stylesheet when you need it.
- GoblinSlayer 4y ago
  If you want different window width, browser is usually resizable.
  - qup 4y ago
    I don't want a different window width, I want a different line width. And as mentioned, I achieve it myself with a style extension.
ghusto 4y ago
> Good information design, clear visual hierarchy, accessibility, etc. all help with communication Isn't that what HTML gives us?
- martin_a 4y ago
  Somewhat subtle, but: Yes and No. I'd say HTML for itself just gives us a way to give meaning or imply how something should be styled "headline of first order". In the end it's a markup language, not some magic styling tool. How it is actually styled (in absence of CSS) is in the hands of the default rendering of your browser. That might very well be a very bad rendering, due to lack of knowledge/time/engagement of the people building/maintaining that renderer. Also those renderes might come from a time and system where technical limitations where different, markup was different, lots of things were very different. So I don't think we should expect HTML alone to "look nice" or work well in regards of readability.
  - berkes 4y ago
    > I'm quite certain that a large part of the web would need no CSS or just a few lines of it, if the basic (browser applied styles) were good. As in: designed I think we would win a lot if browsers default styles were beautiful (as in: really good, not merely fancy) designed. Many websites then would need just a few lines to set some colors, style that weird-custom thing they do or make it feel just a bit more personal.
    - kerkeslager 4y ago
      I think the bigger thing would be to have more semantic HTML. <dropdown>, <tab-area><tab>Content</tab></tab-area>, <carousel><slide>Content</slide></carousel>, <rich-text-editor>, etc. Instead we've got a million immature implementations of these that are slower because they are written in JS instead of native code, slowly break over time as they aren't maintained, and typically have terrible accessibility.
- kerkeslager 4y ago
  Well, that was what HTML was on track to give us. But once JS and CSS were introduced, semantic HTML that was actually semantic stopped developing, under the assumption that if someone needed, for example, a tab area or slide show, they could develop those themselves with CSS/JS. What we've gotten instead is extremely vague elements like "section" that don't communicate what the elements are. If HTML were truly semantic, browsers could implement accessibility features around it, but because they're so vague, there's no real way for browsers to do that, which offloads the responsibility onto web developers, who in most cases aren't granted budget to do it. There are a handful of features such as alt properties, but these are pretty limited. So yeah, HTML should give us that, but that's part of what users gave up when we decided it was acceptable to allow random websites to run code on our machines and tell us how our content should be displayed.
bombcar 4y ago
Reminds me of http://motherfuckingwebsite.com http://motherfuckingwebsite.com and http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com But the key, underlying point to ALL this stuff is that you do NOT NEED TO WORRY ABOUT PRESENTATION until you have the CONTENT. A huge temptation is to spend hours and hours tweaking the presentation as a way of avoiding actually creating the content; this is the real danger. (should mention https://thebestmotherfucking.website https://thebestmotherfucking.website of course)
- low_tech_love 4y ago
  Wow, thanks for those links! No joke; the CSS on the better site is literally going to become my default CSS from now on.
  - j45 4y ago
    It's a great example of how a little can do a lot. The balance between design & function can be at odds when the mission of the page is not clear. For consumption, these are awesome, your brain almost relaxes as it's easier than the usual onslaught.
    - alduin32 4y ago
      It's also a great example of how even such a little can go wrong. The CSS of the second website is wrong, as it uses 'color' without setting 'background-color'. Assuming anything about the default background color is not possible because it is user-configurable in most browsers. At least http://motherfuckingwebsite.com http://motherfuckingwebsite.com remains readable when you change your color settings (the second one is completely unreadable on my browser).
      - bombcar 4y ago
        You want https://thebestmotherfucking.website https://thebestmotherfucking.website
low_tech_love 4y ago
I think the main point is that, balance is also a very important design decision. A bit of CSS can go a long way; a lot of CSS can become a nuisance. There is definitely some 80/20 sweet spot where you get most of the design you need from a little CSS; finding that sweet spot is the challenge. Javascript transitions/animations, on the other hand... yeah. I won't got there.
berkes 4y ago
I've been arguing that HTML would've been a much better information-carrier if "basic browser styling" did this. I'm quite certain that a large part of the web would need no CSS or just a few lines of it, if the basic (browser applied styles) were good. As in: designed by (information) designers. They could even differ per browser, as long as all of them were good (or really good). But alas, base styles are a mess (yet still there!). They do have some hierarchy but accessibility and readability are bad. That's aside from aesthetics: just stuff like alignment, spacing, fonts, flow: very poor. I am aware that more base styles would make that cursed "reset.css" even larger, but I guess if a large part wouldn't even need that, it would be fine. It would be a situation where everyone can choose "good styles" or "spend lots of effort to get even better, custom, styling", rather than everyone "spend lots of effort to get an even decent styling".
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  Honestly - it'd be pretty nice to be able to opt-in/out of the default user agent styles applied by browsers. If we really want to preserve compatibility - opt-in to a version. Keep it all the same as current if there's no tag on the page, but if you add something like <meta uastyles="1.0.0"> or something, apply an improved set of default styles. Get rid of the need for resets with <meta uastyles="none"> Basically - I'd love a way to allow browser vendors to dramatically improve the defaults without breaking everything, and also giving frameworks an easy opt out.
  - myfonj 4y ago
    I agree that defaults are not perfect, but I'd like to add that the initial idea was that they are, well, defaults, and you -- as a user -- are supposed to adjust them to what you prefer. In some dashboard usually called "preferences" or "settings". And fact is that you still can: you can tell your browser "for this script, for serif, use this font family, for sans use that one" etc etc. You can set you preferred text colours. You can even write your own style that will sit between user agent styles (those "ugly defaults") and author styles (those forcing weird stuff). Initial idea was that our browsers will be truly individual tools and one of their main task will be consolidating those preferences from various sources. That's the "cascade" in the CSS.
j45 4y ago
A lot of these things were handled by one typeface on a typewriter so the premise isn't entirely unfounded. Visual communication and design predates CSS. Information architecture, design, guiding the user through the message is definitely a skill. CSS can do as much distraction as it can enhancement. It's one appeal of Tailwind, it's more than serviceable while learning about the design, hierarchy, and flow.
fsociety 4y ago
100%, and calling aesthetics an appeal to vanity and ego is a reductive take. I love that individual’s websites have different styles which reflect either them personally or their brand. That can mean going all out in design, or having an HTML-only page like nothing. Both have value in their own way, and should reflect the creator to some extent.
unsupp0rted 4y ago
Good CSS makes my users use the system less wrong.
jcutrell 4y ago
Yeah, this is just some purist BS in my opinion. Message / medium have always mixed together. Even folks who say content needs to be figured out before presentation... it's not so cut and dry. Your medium shapes your message - they are not mutually exclusive and for the receiver of the message, the medium matters for their reception of the message. I understand the sentiment that TONS of CSS is probably a bad use of time. But trying to demonize or otherwise attach aesthetics the label of "meaningless" is, in my opinion, just as much egocentric as they claim CSS to be.
5350-uiop-1130 4y ago
use css, just enough with the animations! > scroll the mousewheel: giant footer section slides up taking half the viewport > move the mouse cursor up: giant ass header slide menu drops down covering half the viewport should be absolutely no motion on a page unless i specifically click on something, like play button or slide out button. and that includes parallax bullshit. prefers-reduced-motion should be the DEFAULT not an override. ffs haven't we learnt anything in the last 20 years of web dev - you cant rely on web monkeys to build things right (\s). --- and f*k you to whoever thought having mouse hover popup autoplay boxes on youtube was a good idea.
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  > prefers-reduced-motion should be the DEFAULT not an override I don’t personally feel nearly as strongly about the subject, but I wholeheartedly agree with this.
bdcravens 4y ago
Even one of the most non-style sites on the web, Craigslist, has a stylesheet.
cmdialog 4y ago
In my personal, obviously anecdotal, experience it's always the "technical" guys who think things like this. This is why we have UI/UX teams and we don't let programmers create visual interfaces.
- calsy 4y ago
  Because reading words requires substantial styling enhancements over what the browser is already capable of? Has anyone picked up a book lately? You need a UI team to create a page of readable text? That sounds like an expensive waste. But it sounds like those 'UI' people think they know better and don't need suggestions from programmers about reading words, even though its what they do all day.
  - Kerrick 4y ago
    Fun fact: your text will look nothing like a book if you use HTML with no CSS and rely only on the user agent default style sheet. Books are designed, too.
    - calsy 4y ago
      substantial styling enhancements.
    - GoblinSlayer 4y ago
      If you don't like default settings, change them, that's why the options dialog exists.
      - Kerrick 4y ago
        Couldn’t you say that CSS is like a really powerful options dialog?
  - cmdialog 4y ago
    It's very funny that you seem to think reading code and reading a website are the exact same type of activities, and the same type of reading. They are not. And I don't know where you've been for the last 30 some years, but the web is not a text only format, and the reason HTML was invented was specifically to be able to create a designed space where text can actually make sense and is not a gigantic wall of impossibly small black on white text.
Vrondi 4y ago
But, you can get all of these things from HTML. Especially visual hierarchy and accessibility. The cornerstone of accessibility on the web is: does it display legibly and is it navigable without any CSS? CSS is eye candy. It's aesthetics. Those are not without value, but the value is not in the things you list.
eikenberry 4y ago
> Design isn't just about aesthetics. Why dismiss aesthetics out of hand like this, equating it with vanity and ego? Aesthetics are very important to people, possibly even more so than the information on the page.
- calsy 4y ago
  Aesthetics are more important than content?? Where did you get that idea from?
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    Obviously, that depends on the purpose of the page/site. If the page is a brochure or advertisement, content is almost irrelevant; you could link to it, for buyers that wanted content. Brochures and ads are about feelings, and aesthetics are about feelings. That's not what I think the www is for, but not everyone agrees with me.
    - GoblinSlayer 4y ago
      >advertisement, content is almost irrelevant Then it shouldn't exist from the start.
- truculent 4y ago
  FWIW, I agree with you (and I don't see where I dismissed it), but the point is that even a certain type of utilitarian-inclined programmer is wrong on their own terms.
NoGravitas 4y ago
It's also the case that the default stylesheets for the web are terrible, for historical reasons. If the default stylesheets were reasonable, then at least 80% of the time you could just use semantic HTML5 and be sure that your presentation was at least OK in terms of visual hierarchy, accessibility, etc. As things actually stand, you need at minimum "100 bytes of CSS to Look Great Everywhere", and if that doesn't meet your needs, a classless stylesheet.

criticalstone 4y ago

I agree, I get the idea that a blog doesn't have to be fancy, but a simple css theme with nice spacing and good font size goes a long way. The examples they show makes me click away instantly, because it is so damn hard to read.

throwntoday 4y ago
In his examples the content is so niche the reader is probably willing to put up with no design to get the information.
- j45 4y ago
  Also possible the typeface is compatible with the readers and the content they regularly consume. Hell, that typeface is something anyone is subjected too if you do anything long enough. The experience of getting to imagine how much thought goes into laying out text on a typewriter is something I think should be for everyone to try at least a few times.

qup 4y ago

As a good example, his site is very readable (because of the limited width of lines), and the sites he linked to that were largely unstyled were very useful, but not very readable. It would be worth it to me, as a user, to use a browser plugin to add a few lines of CSS to those sites before I dove in.

NoGravitas 4y ago
The "Stylus" extension does what you need. Turn on "100 bytes of CSS" or a classless stylesheet when you need it.
GoblinSlayer 4y ago
If you want different window width, browser is usually resizable.
- qup 4y ago
  I don't want a different window width, I want a different line width. And as mentioned, I achieve it myself with a style extension.

ghusto 4y ago

> Good information design, clear visual hierarchy, accessibility, etc. all help with communication Isn't that what HTML gives us?

martin_a 4y ago
Somewhat subtle, but: Yes and No. I'd say HTML for itself just gives us a way to give meaning or imply how something should be styled "headline of first order". In the end it's a markup language, not some magic styling tool. How it is actually styled (in absence of CSS) is in the hands of the default rendering of your browser. That might very well be a very bad rendering, due to lack of knowledge/time/engagement of the people building/maintaining that renderer. Also those renderes might come from a time and system where technical limitations where different, markup was different, lots of things were very different. So I don't think we should expect HTML alone to "look nice" or work well in regards of readability.
- berkes 4y ago
  > I'm quite certain that a large part of the web would need no CSS or just a few lines of it, if the basic (browser applied styles) were good. As in: designed I think we would win a lot if browsers default styles were beautiful (as in: really good, not merely fancy) designed. Many websites then would need just a few lines to set some colors, style that weird-custom thing they do or make it feel just a bit more personal.
  - kerkeslager 4y ago
    I think the bigger thing would be to have more semantic HTML. <dropdown>, <tab-area><tab>Content</tab></tab-area>, <carousel><slide>Content</slide></carousel>, <rich-text-editor>, etc. Instead we've got a million immature implementations of these that are slower because they are written in JS instead of native code, slowly break over time as they aren't maintained, and typically have terrible accessibility.
kerkeslager 4y ago
Well, that was what HTML was on track to give us. But once JS and CSS were introduced, semantic HTML that was actually semantic stopped developing, under the assumption that if someone needed, for example, a tab area or slide show, they could develop those themselves with CSS/JS. What we've gotten instead is extremely vague elements like "section" that don't communicate what the elements are. If HTML were truly semantic, browsers could implement accessibility features around it, but because they're so vague, there's no real way for browsers to do that, which offloads the responsibility onto web developers, who in most cases aren't granted budget to do it. There are a handful of features such as alt properties, but these are pretty limited. So yeah, HTML should give us that, but that's part of what users gave up when we decided it was acceptable to allow random websites to run code on our machines and tell us how our content should be displayed.

bombcar 4y ago

Reminds me of http://motherfuckingwebsite.com http://motherfuckingwebsite.com and http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com But the key, underlying point to ALL this stuff is that you do NOT NEED TO WORRY ABOUT PRESENTATION until you have the CONTENT. A huge temptation is to spend hours and hours tweaking the presentation as a way of avoiding actually creating the content; this is the real danger. (should mention https://thebestmotherfucking.website https://thebestmotherfucking.website of course)

low_tech_love 4y ago
Wow, thanks for those links! No joke; the CSS on the better site is literally going to become my default CSS from now on.
- j45 4y ago
  It's a great example of how a little can do a lot. The balance between design & function can be at odds when the mission of the page is not clear. For consumption, these are awesome, your brain almost relaxes as it's easier than the usual onslaught.
  - alduin32 4y ago
    It's also a great example of how even such a little can go wrong. The CSS of the second website is wrong, as it uses 'color' without setting 'background-color'. Assuming anything about the default background color is not possible because it is user-configurable in most browsers. At least http://motherfuckingwebsite.com http://motherfuckingwebsite.com remains readable when you change your color settings (the second one is completely unreadable on my browser).
    - bombcar 4y ago
      You want https://thebestmotherfucking.website https://thebestmotherfucking.website

low_tech_love 4y ago

I think the main point is that, balance is also a very important design decision. A bit of CSS can go a long way; a lot of CSS can become a nuisance. There is definitely some 80/20 sweet spot where you get most of the design you need from a little CSS; finding that sweet spot is the challenge. Javascript transitions/animations, on the other hand... yeah. I won't got there.

berkes 4y ago

I've been arguing that HTML would've been a much better information-carrier if "basic browser styling" did this. I'm quite certain that a large part of the web would need no CSS or just a few lines of it, if the basic (browser applied styles) were good. As in: designed by (information) designers. They could even differ per browser, as long as all of them were good (or really good). But alas, base styles are a mess (yet still there!). They do have some hierarchy but accessibility and readability are bad. That's aside from aesthetics: just stuff like alignment, spacing, fonts, flow: very poor. I am aware that more base styles would make that cursed "reset.css" even larger, but I guess if a large part wouldn't even need that, it would be fine. It would be a situation where everyone can choose "good styles" or "spend lots of effort to get even better, custom, styling", rather than everyone "spend lots of effort to get an even decent styling".

horsawlarway 4y ago
Honestly - it'd be pretty nice to be able to opt-in/out of the default user agent styles applied by browsers. If we really want to preserve compatibility - opt-in to a version. Keep it all the same as current if there's no tag on the page, but if you add something like <meta uastyles="1.0.0"> or something, apply an improved set of default styles. Get rid of the need for resets with <meta uastyles="none"> Basically - I'd love a way to allow browser vendors to dramatically improve the defaults without breaking everything, and also giving frameworks an easy opt out.
- myfonj 4y ago
  I agree that defaults are not perfect, but I'd like to add that the initial idea was that they are, well, defaults, and you -- as a user -- are supposed to adjust them to what you prefer. In some dashboard usually called "preferences" or "settings". And fact is that you still can: you can tell your browser "for this script, for serif, use this font family, for sans use that one" etc etc. You can set you preferred text colours. You can even write your own style that will sit between user agent styles (those "ugly defaults") and author styles (those forcing weird stuff). Initial idea was that our browsers will be truly individual tools and one of their main task will be consolidating those preferences from various sources. That's the "cascade" in the CSS.

j45 4y ago

A lot of these things were handled by one typeface on a typewriter so the premise isn't entirely unfounded. Visual communication and design predates CSS. Information architecture, design, guiding the user through the message is definitely a skill. CSS can do as much distraction as it can enhancement. It's one appeal of Tailwind, it's more than serviceable while learning about the design, hierarchy, and flow.

fsociety 4y ago

100%, and calling aesthetics an appeal to vanity and ego is a reductive take. I love that individual’s websites have different styles which reflect either them personally or their brand. That can mean going all out in design, or having an HTML-only page like nothing. Both have value in their own way, and should reflect the creator to some extent.

unsupp0rted 4y ago

Good CSS makes my users use the system less wrong.

jcutrell 4y ago

Yeah, this is just some purist BS in my opinion. Message / medium have always mixed together. Even folks who say content needs to be figured out before presentation... it's not so cut and dry. Your medium shapes your message - they are not mutually exclusive and for the receiver of the message, the medium matters for their reception of the message. I understand the sentiment that TONS of CSS is probably a bad use of time. But trying to demonize or otherwise attach aesthetics the label of "meaningless" is, in my opinion, just as much egocentric as they claim CSS to be.

5350-uiop-1130 4y ago

use css, just enough with the animations! > scroll the mousewheel: giant footer section slides up taking half the viewport > move the mouse cursor up: giant ass header slide menu drops down covering half the viewport should be absolutely no motion on a page unless i specifically click on something, like play button or slide out button. and that includes parallax bullshit. prefers-reduced-motion should be the DEFAULT not an override. ffs haven't we learnt anything in the last 20 years of web dev - you cant rely on web monkeys to build things right (\s). --- and f*k you to whoever thought having mouse hover popup autoplay boxes on youtube was a good idea.

eyelidlessness 4y ago
> prefers-reduced-motion should be the DEFAULT not an override I don’t personally feel nearly as strongly about the subject, but I wholeheartedly agree with this.

bdcravens 4y ago

Even one of the most non-style sites on the web, Craigslist, has a stylesheet.

cmdialog 4y ago

In my personal, obviously anecdotal, experience it's always the "technical" guys who think things like this. This is why we have UI/UX teams and we don't let programmers create visual interfaces.

calsy 4y ago
Because reading words requires substantial styling enhancements over what the browser is already capable of? Has anyone picked up a book lately? You need a UI team to create a page of readable text? That sounds like an expensive waste. But it sounds like those 'UI' people think they know better and don't need suggestions from programmers about reading words, even though its what they do all day.
- Kerrick 4y ago
  Fun fact: your text will look nothing like a book if you use HTML with no CSS and rely only on the user agent default style sheet. Books are designed, too.
  - calsy 4y ago
    substantial styling enhancements.
  - GoblinSlayer 4y ago
    If you don't like default settings, change them, that's why the options dialog exists.
    - Kerrick 4y ago
      Couldn’t you say that CSS is like a really powerful options dialog?
- cmdialog 4y ago
  It's very funny that you seem to think reading code and reading a website are the exact same type of activities, and the same type of reading. They are not. And I don't know where you've been for the last 30 some years, but the web is not a text only format, and the reason HTML was invented was specifically to be able to create a designed space where text can actually make sense and is not a gigantic wall of impossibly small black on white text.

Vrondi 4y ago

But, you can get all of these things from HTML. Especially visual hierarchy and accessibility. The cornerstone of accessibility on the web is: does it display legibly and is it navigable without any CSS? CSS is eye candy. It's aesthetics. Those are not without value, but the value is not in the things you list.

eikenberry 4y ago

> Design isn't just about aesthetics. Why dismiss aesthetics out of hand like this, equating it with vanity and ego? Aesthetics are very important to people, possibly even more so than the information on the page.

calsy 4y ago
Aesthetics are more important than content?? Where did you get that idea from?
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  Obviously, that depends on the purpose of the page/site. If the page is a brochure or advertisement, content is almost irrelevant; you could link to it, for buyers that wanted content. Brochures and ads are about feelings, and aesthetics are about feelings. That's not what I think the www is for, but not everyone agrees with me.
  - GoblinSlayer 4y ago
    >advertisement, content is almost irrelevant Then it shouldn't exist from the start.
truculent 4y ago
FWIW, I agree with you (and I don't see where I dismissed it), but the point is that even a certain type of utilitarian-inclined programmer is wrong on their own terms.

NoGravitas 4y ago

It's also the case that the default stylesheets for the web are terrible, for historical reasons. If the default stylesheets were reasonable, then at least 80% of the time you could just use semantic HTML5 and be sure that your presentation was at least OK in terms of visual hierarchy, accessibility, etc. As things actually stand, you need at minimum "100 bytes of CSS to Look Great Everywhere", and if that doesn't meet your needs, a classless stylesheet.