5 ms·

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 pr

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.
  - mtrower 4y ago
    Print is also not a text only format; it's a designed space, with a mountain of effort given to typesetting and presentation. Yet the market for text only novels is staggering.
    - cmdialog 4y ago
      I understand this and that's all well and good. Many (but not enough) offer "print" versions of pages, which could and should be translated to "text only" versions of pages. This isn't my issue. My issue is these <redacted> imagining that the web outright doesn't need design at all and that CSS is a terrible waste. And to me this is just about the most dull opinion on the subject that I can think of.
      - mtrower 4y ago
        > My issue is these <redacted> imagining that the web outright doesn't need design at all and that CSS is a terrible waste. While you do have some going to that extreme, I think it's mostly pushback against the insane amount of bloat and overbusy design out there. Some CSS can be useful, to improve readability and offer a little visual appeal. But I think maybe you missed my point. Traditional books are typeset the way they are for a reason. No or minimal pictures. Block after block of text, broken up and spaced for readability, comprehensibility, and flow. Different types of books are laid out differently, but they mostly follow this theme. It's highly effective. You kind of broadly have 3* categories of web pages on the web, as relates back to print: * Book-types (mostly text in nature) * Magazine-types (more about graphic design, with content mixed in) * Advertisement flyer-types (sales pitches, mostly about design) These are going to have different design requirements. There's plenty to write on the subject of design for these categories, but in the interest of getting to the point: there's an awful lot of the first category on the internet, and it really requires very little in the way of CSS. It certainly doesn't require hero images and 10MB of javascript. Blogs should read like newspaper articles, technical content should be typeset with similar minimalism to technical papers or books. * There's a fourth category: webapps. My personal stance is that these don't belong on the web at all, but given that they're going to be, they obviously have far different design requirements, and are quite outside the scope of this discussion.
xigoi 4y ago
If your idea of a good site is a 3MB monster full of useless whitespace, hero images, carousels, hamburger menus and other modern design trends, maybe that's a sign we shouldn't let designers create visual interfaces.
- cmdialog 4y ago
  I really dodged a bullet there huh? Since that isn't my idea of a "good" site necessarily. But if your idea of a "good" site is all function and no form, then maybe stick to designing abstract interfaces and not things actual people have to see.
  - xigoi 4y ago
    Don't get me wrong, I like a website to look good. But it shouldn't compromise on speed on functionality.
  - GoblinSlayer 4y ago
    All function and no form is much much better than broken function and broken form which is the modern web 2.0. Feel free to find a site better than http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/
    - cmdialog 4y ago
      Why are you even browsing websites that have any design then? Why are you even browsing in anything other than lynx? Please spare me seeing that ideologically boring site again Like I can barely imagine what your house might look like. Just like a purely functional weathered hovel with the absolutely barest essentials. A perfect prison cell
      - GoblinSlayer 4y ago
        Web 2.0 design can be fixed so some extent by disabling javascript and sometimes disabling styles.
llanowarelves 4y ago
I like it because it means they will never be my competition for anything but incredibly niche/domain-specific boomer software people have no choice but to begrudgingly use.

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.
- mtrower 4y ago
  Print is also not a text only format; it's a designed space, with a mountain of effort given to typesetting and presentation. Yet the market for text only novels is staggering.
  - cmdialog 4y ago
    I understand this and that's all well and good. Many (but not enough) offer "print" versions of pages, which could and should be translated to "text only" versions of pages. This isn't my issue. My issue is these <redacted> imagining that the web outright doesn't need design at all and that CSS is a terrible waste. And to me this is just about the most dull opinion on the subject that I can think of.
    - mtrower 4y ago
      > My issue is these <redacted> imagining that the web outright doesn't need design at all and that CSS is a terrible waste. While you do have some going to that extreme, I think it's mostly pushback against the insane amount of bloat and overbusy design out there. Some CSS can be useful, to improve readability and offer a little visual appeal. But I think maybe you missed my point. Traditional books are typeset the way they are for a reason. No or minimal pictures. Block after block of text, broken up and spaced for readability, comprehensibility, and flow. Different types of books are laid out differently, but they mostly follow this theme. It's highly effective. You kind of broadly have 3* categories of web pages on the web, as relates back to print: * Book-types (mostly text in nature) * Magazine-types (more about graphic design, with content mixed in) * Advertisement flyer-types (sales pitches, mostly about design) These are going to have different design requirements. There's plenty to write on the subject of design for these categories, but in the interest of getting to the point: there's an awful lot of the first category on the internet, and it really requires very little in the way of CSS. It certainly doesn't require hero images and 10MB of javascript. Blogs should read like newspaper articles, technical content should be typeset with similar minimalism to technical papers or books. * There's a fourth category: webapps. My personal stance is that these don't belong on the web at all, but given that they're going to be, they obviously have far different design requirements, and are quite outside the scope of this discussion.

xigoi 4y ago

If your idea of a good site is a 3MB monster full of useless whitespace, hero images, carousels, hamburger menus and other modern design trends, maybe that's a sign we shouldn't let designers create visual interfaces.

cmdialog 4y ago
I really dodged a bullet there huh? Since that isn't my idea of a "good" site necessarily. But if your idea of a "good" site is all function and no form, then maybe stick to designing abstract interfaces and not things actual people have to see.
- xigoi 4y ago
  Don't get me wrong, I like a website to look good. But it shouldn't compromise on speed on functionality.
- GoblinSlayer 4y ago
  All function and no form is much much better than broken function and broken form which is the modern web 2.0. Feel free to find a site better than http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/
  - cmdialog 4y ago
    Why are you even browsing websites that have any design then? Why are you even browsing in anything other than lynx? Please spare me seeing that ideologically boring site again Like I can barely imagine what your house might look like. Just like a purely functional weathered hovel with the absolutely barest essentials. A perfect prison cell
    - GoblinSlayer 4y ago
      Web 2.0 design can be fixed so some extent by disabling javascript and sometimes disabling styles.

llanowarelves 4y ago

I like it because it means they will never be my competition for anything but incredibly niche/domain-specific boomer software people have no choice but to begrudgingly use.