4 ms·

In my opinion, it is a good example of a document-type website, can you share the technology stack?

scq 3y ago
Appears to be React + React Router, built with create-react-app. I'd use Next for a site like this nowadays, though.
pxoe 3y ago
when trying to read through it - it's kind of a bad example of a website, that turns out to be unusable. unreadable, definitely. or maybe it's just this kind of format, 'bunch of separate pages, sidebar with nesting, and clicking, clicking and more clicking between pages' - is actually bad for reading through content. mostly because of constant reading flow interruption. pages are too short, there's too little information on them, switching between pages and reading through is clunky, there's too much clicking - and not enough 'actual content' in comparison. (there's too much clicking in proportion to actual content being shown, and it ends up being an annoyance and a disappointment in 'received/perceived value from actions'.) even the individual pages - besides being alarmingly most of the time too short to even be an individual page and not a section on a larger page - pages also have a bunch of overstructured 'junk' on them: those bizarre blue (?) cards stacked at the bottom (wanna highlight something? one or two cards - fine. five, six, more? that's entirely too much), 'related topics' (that look just like a meaningless list of random links), and sources (dumped at the bottom, instead of being interspersed throughout the text, or being tucked away somewhere else). it all just looks like a bunch of visual clutter with dubious value, and even if there's actual value there, it gets diminished by having stuff be scattered like this, in a 'what should I even pay attention to' kind of way. and when all that junk in comparison is even longer than the 'page' and its actual content itself - it really gives an impression like 'what the hell is even happening here? what's the value of this'. being forced to scroll through that junk to even get to 'prev/next page' buttons, feels kinda like a betrayal of good reading experience. it's a good example of why websites like this are so bad at being 'readable'. like, compare this mess to the experience of reading a book.
- dylanzhangdev 3y ago
  I don’t think it needs to be too strict and can be more friendly. As someone who lacks understanding of color theory, I can learn a lot from this website. In fact, each topic doesn’t have much content. I think it’s a kind of restraint, only retaining the most basic definitions and providing reference materials. In terms of UI, this website looks visually clear and has friendly navigation. Personally, I like it.
warrenm 3y ago
I found it via Flowing Data - https://flowingdata.com/2023/06/22/an-interactive-guide-to-color-and-contrast https://flowingdata.com/2023/06/22/an-interactive-guide-to-c...

scq 3y ago

Appears to be React + React Router, built with create-react-app. I'd use Next for a site like this nowadays, though.

pxoe 3y ago

when trying to read through it - it's kind of a bad example of a website, that turns out to be unusable. unreadable, definitely. or maybe it's just this kind of format, 'bunch of separate pages, sidebar with nesting, and clicking, clicking and more clicking between pages' - is actually bad for reading through content. mostly because of constant reading flow interruption. pages are too short, there's too little information on them, switching between pages and reading through is clunky, there's too much clicking - and not enough 'actual content' in comparison. (there's too much clicking in proportion to actual content being shown, and it ends up being an annoyance and a disappointment in 'received/perceived value from actions'.) even the individual pages - besides being alarmingly most of the time too short to even be an individual page and not a section on a larger page - pages also have a bunch of overstructured 'junk' on them: those bizarre blue (?) cards stacked at the bottom (wanna highlight something? one or two cards - fine. five, six, more? that's entirely too much), 'related topics' (that look just like a meaningless list of random links), and sources (dumped at the bottom, instead of being interspersed throughout the text, or being tucked away somewhere else). it all just looks like a bunch of visual clutter with dubious value, and even if there's actual value there, it gets diminished by having stuff be scattered like this, in a 'what should I even pay attention to' kind of way. and when all that junk in comparison is even longer than the 'page' and its actual content itself - it really gives an impression like 'what the hell is even happening here? what's the value of this'. being forced to scroll through that junk to even get to 'prev/next page' buttons, feels kinda like a betrayal of good reading experience. it's a good example of why websites like this are so bad at being 'readable'. like, compare this mess to the experience of reading a book.

dylanzhangdev 3y ago
I don’t think it needs to be too strict and can be more friendly. As someone who lacks understanding of color theory, I can learn a lot from this website. In fact, each topic doesn’t have much content. I think it’s a kind of restraint, only retaining the most basic definitions and providing reference materials. In terms of UI, this website looks visually clear and has friendly navigation. Personally, I like it.

warrenm 3y ago

I found it via Flowing Data - https://flowingdata.com/2023/06/22/an-interactive-guide-to-color-and-contrast https://flowingdata.com/2023/06/22/an-interactive-guide-to-c...