5 ms·

I think its in the eye of the beholder. The Go site looks fine to me, whilst https://github.com/404 https://github.com/404 is downright ugly. EDIT: I notice h

I think its in the eye of the beholder. The Go site looks fine to me, whilst https://github.com/404 https://github.com/404 is downright ugly. EDIT: I notice how the OP link is a horrid design too. This has to be a troll.

gebe 14y ago
I feel this way too. I even kind of like the no bullshit design ("design") on PHP's site as well. It's fast and it's clear and it makes me reminisce about the times when I didn't need a top of the line computer just to surf the fucking web.
- saiko-chriskun 14y ago
  It is /not/ "in the eye of the beholder". UX is a science. If you can't tell the difference between PHP's site and, say, git's, well, I don't think there's much else to talk about here.
  - debaserab2 14y ago
    Er, what? Please explain -- I type a function name into PHP's search box (or actually, at this point it's so well indexed on Google all I need to do is type the function name into Chrome's omnibox) and I get exactly what I'm looking for. I'm guessing I'm not in the minority of people who visit PHP's site for language doc / reference. As an end user, php.net gives me what I'm looking for 95% of the time. How is that not good UX? I do like github and find it to be well organized as well, although it's search leaves something to be desired and sometimes I find myself fumbling through the UI to find a specific git feature. Although I'd argue that the breadth of functionality they need to cover is beyond that of a language site like PHP's. On a complete sidenote, I've always thought github's 404 page was neat, but what does it have to do with good UX?
    - sgdesign 14y ago
      I know you're replying to Saiko-chriskun, but I would just like to point out that my post was not about UX. I don't have any complaints about the UX of the Go site (although as far as PHP is concerned, they could probably remove some of the clutter on there).
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - k3n 14y ago
      Ok, you're able to accomplish your given task on php.net; it's functionally complete to you, someone who has probably visited it many times. It really isn't a very high standard to find the only text input box on the page and type in exactly what you're looking for. And, that doesn't inherently make it well-organized, nor does it say anything about how discoverable content is, or how well the interaction is with the commenting system, or anything else really. It is a science, I implore you to read up more on it if you really think your anecdote is an example of 'good' UX (and by extension, design).
      - debaserab2 14y ago
        I haven't "read up" on UX (a term only popularized within the last few years), but I have developed websites for the last decade or so. I'm not sure what the sciences say, but in my opinion good user experience starts with knowing who your audience is. I still argue that ~95% of php.net's audience is there for documentation reference. If 95% of your audience needs to simply look up a language construct or function, how can one to two page requests be perceived as bad UX? I can literally type in http://php.net/[FUNCTION_NAME_HERE] http://php.net/[FUNCTION_NAME_HERE] and get exactly what I want. The only thing I need to memorize is a domain name. And if I'm too lazy for that, it's undoubtedly the #1 hit on Google.
        k3n 14y ago
        True, the audience has a lot to do with it, but just because something "works" doesn't mean that it's optimal. Take for instance, one of the 1st things many might use the site for: downloading PHP. There's a downloads page, and then there's a Windows download page, and they're both fundamentally different. It's as if you're going to a completely different site, which breaks any continuity there was to begin with. Am I even still on php.net? Likewise, what's the utility of the tutorial[1]? It directs the user to Apache's website to download a server, even though one has been bundled with PHP for 6 months now. A server that's included by default for the sole reason of making local development easier, but they can't even keep their "newbie" tutorial up-to-date even after 6 months? Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying php.net is /bad/; rather, I think there's room for improvement.
numbnuts 14y ago
Agreed about the Go site. Not ugly at all but, personally, I'd set a max-width on the container and maybe up the line-height a bit. What don't you like about the OP's site? It's certainly "hip and modern" but what makes it horrid?
- quacker 14y ago
  I'm not the parent, but: text is spaced out awkwardly, tan text on a tan background is hard to see, orange popping out at you everywhere is distracting, orange twitter and Google+ buttons at the bottom are unfamiliar, the inline pictures look as though the right hand side is cut off. Even if you don't think these are valid criticisms, the point is that this is all subjective. These are opinions and the OP saying "this is bad and that is good" as though it's law only shows that he misunderstands the audience of programmers who use these sites. I don't program in C or C++ because I thought they have a good website; they have no official website at all.
  - numbnuts 14y ago
    Perfectly valid criticisms. I actually agree with yours, especially with the (over)use of orange. But I still wouldn't call it "horrid". I didn't mean to sound like I was dismissing hermanhermitage's opinion. But by just calling the design horrid and the OP a troll without specifics, he falls into the same "this is bad and that is good" trap. As a wannabe-designer I am legitimately curious what hermanhermitage doesn't like about the OP's site. I've seen much worse. As for the OP misunderstanding the primary users of programming languages' websites, that seems to be part and parcel of some designers, isn't it?
    - hermanhermitage 14y ago
      "Comic Sans II" - The Return of the King! :) [Ok not quite, not close?, but thats what I feel].
      - numbnuts 14y ago
        Ahh, the rounded font. I actually didn't notice until you mentioned it. Typography is one thing I don't think I'll ever get my head around.
sgdesign 14y ago
Would love to know what's so horrid about my site's design.
- hermanhermitage 14y ago
  Hopefully you'll ignore my opinion - its all in the eye of the beholder from my perspective :) (The basis of that not being UX - thanks to whomever raised that random distraction, but about Beauty / Ugliness as cited in your headline). You aren't going to please everyone all the time, and certainly your design gets a reaction from me. My assessment is made in the context of you assessing other designs - hoist with your own petard if you will. This heightens the situation - that is I'd expect an exemplary design on a page willing to comment on others. The number one turn off for me would be the choice of font. It certainly comes of as playful and dare I comment on Mark's work (for I shall) - I do not think that quality of font is suitable for body text. No it's not in the comic sans league, but it evokes unpleasant sensations. This could be the font itself or font rendering on Chrome on the Mac. Quite frankly I find it horrid. Next for me is the typographical structure. The spacing is aggressive and draws attention to the font - which is undesirable for me given my reaction to the font. All your headings have what appears to be the same amount of white space above and below. It feels rather generic and rushed. Finally the elements on the right hand side are too dominant for my liking and draw focus away from the article. Perhaps as they contain advertising material that is the intent. But it doesn't do much for me. Take it all with a grain of salt, I think it was Keith Richards who had a comment about opinions being like... :)
- asjo 14y ago
  "Horrid" is a bit harsh, but the typography choices are hard to understand, at least as rendered on my screen: * http://koldfront.dk/misc/hn/sg.png http://koldfront.dk/misc/hn/sg.png The font for the main text is oddly changing between being very thin/light and on some select letters quite fat (v, A). The links are _very_ bold, impeding reading. Other than that I think your design nice and simple.

gebe 14y ago

I feel this way too. I even kind of like the no bullshit design ("design") on PHP's site as well. It's fast and it's clear and it makes me reminisce about the times when I didn't need a top of the line computer just to surf the fucking web.

saiko-chriskun 14y ago
It is /not/ "in the eye of the beholder". UX is a science. If you can't tell the difference between PHP's site and, say, git's, well, I don't think there's much else to talk about here.
- debaserab2 14y ago
  Er, what? Please explain -- I type a function name into PHP's search box (or actually, at this point it's so well indexed on Google all I need to do is type the function name into Chrome's omnibox) and I get exactly what I'm looking for. I'm guessing I'm not in the minority of people who visit PHP's site for language doc / reference. As an end user, php.net gives me what I'm looking for 95% of the time. How is that not good UX? I do like github and find it to be well organized as well, although it's search leaves something to be desired and sometimes I find myself fumbling through the UI to find a specific git feature. Although I'd argue that the breadth of functionality they need to cover is beyond that of a language site like PHP's. On a complete sidenote, I've always thought github's 404 page was neat, but what does it have to do with good UX?
  - sgdesign 14y ago
    I know you're replying to Saiko-chriskun, but I would just like to point out that my post was not about UX. I don't have any complaints about the UX of the Go site (although as far as PHP is concerned, they could probably remove some of the clutter on there).
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - k3n 14y ago
    Ok, you're able to accomplish your given task on php.net; it's functionally complete to you, someone who has probably visited it many times. It really isn't a very high standard to find the only text input box on the page and type in exactly what you're looking for. And, that doesn't inherently make it well-organized, nor does it say anything about how discoverable content is, or how well the interaction is with the commenting system, or anything else really. It is a science, I implore you to read up more on it if you really think your anecdote is an example of 'good' UX (and by extension, design).
    - debaserab2 14y ago
      I haven't "read up" on UX (a term only popularized within the last few years), but I have developed websites for the last decade or so. I'm not sure what the sciences say, but in my opinion good user experience starts with knowing who your audience is. I still argue that ~95% of php.net's audience is there for documentation reference. If 95% of your audience needs to simply look up a language construct or function, how can one to two page requests be perceived as bad UX? I can literally type in http://php.net/[FUNCTION_NAME_HERE] http://php.net/[FUNCTION_NAME_HERE] and get exactly what I want. The only thing I need to memorize is a domain name. And if I'm too lazy for that, it's undoubtedly the #1 hit on Google.
      - k3n 14y ago
        True, the audience has a lot to do with it, but just because something "works" doesn't mean that it's optimal. Take for instance, one of the 1st things many might use the site for: downloading PHP. There's a downloads page, and then there's a Windows download page, and they're both fundamentally different. It's as if you're going to a completely different site, which breaks any continuity there was to begin with. Am I even still on php.net? Likewise, what's the utility of the tutorial[1]? It directs the user to Apache's website to download a server, even though one has been bundled with PHP for 6 months now. A server that's included by default for the sole reason of making local development easier, but they can't even keep their "newbie" tutorial up-to-date even after 6 months? Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying php.net is /bad/; rather, I think there's room for improvement.

numbnuts 14y ago

Agreed about the Go site. Not ugly at all but, personally, I'd set a max-width on the container and maybe up the line-height a bit. What don't you like about the OP's site? It's certainly "hip and modern" but what makes it horrid?

quacker 14y ago
I'm not the parent, but: text is spaced out awkwardly, tan text on a tan background is hard to see, orange popping out at you everywhere is distracting, orange twitter and Google+ buttons at the bottom are unfamiliar, the inline pictures look as though the right hand side is cut off. Even if you don't think these are valid criticisms, the point is that this is all subjective. These are opinions and the OP saying "this is bad and that is good" as though it's law only shows that he misunderstands the audience of programmers who use these sites. I don't program in C or C++ because I thought they have a good website; they have no official website at all.
- numbnuts 14y ago
  Perfectly valid criticisms. I actually agree with yours, especially with the (over)use of orange. But I still wouldn't call it "horrid". I didn't mean to sound like I was dismissing hermanhermitage's opinion. But by just calling the design horrid and the OP a troll without specifics, he falls into the same "this is bad and that is good" trap. As a wannabe-designer I am legitimately curious what hermanhermitage doesn't like about the OP's site. I've seen much worse. As for the OP misunderstanding the primary users of programming languages' websites, that seems to be part and parcel of some designers, isn't it?
  - hermanhermitage 14y ago
    "Comic Sans II" - The Return of the King! :) [Ok not quite, not close?, but thats what I feel].
    - numbnuts 14y ago
      Ahh, the rounded font. I actually didn't notice until you mentioned it. Typography is one thing I don't think I'll ever get my head around.

sgdesign 14y ago

Would love to know what's so horrid about my site's design.

hermanhermitage 14y ago
Hopefully you'll ignore my opinion - its all in the eye of the beholder from my perspective :) (The basis of that not being UX - thanks to whomever raised that random distraction, but about Beauty / Ugliness as cited in your headline). You aren't going to please everyone all the time, and certainly your design gets a reaction from me. My assessment is made in the context of you assessing other designs - hoist with your own petard if you will. This heightens the situation - that is I'd expect an exemplary design on a page willing to comment on others. The number one turn off for me would be the choice of font. It certainly comes of as playful and dare I comment on Mark's work (for I shall) - I do not think that quality of font is suitable for body text. No it's not in the comic sans league, but it evokes unpleasant sensations. This could be the font itself or font rendering on Chrome on the Mac. Quite frankly I find it horrid. Next for me is the typographical structure. The spacing is aggressive and draws attention to the font - which is undesirable for me given my reaction to the font. All your headings have what appears to be the same amount of white space above and below. It feels rather generic and rushed. Finally the elements on the right hand side are too dominant for my liking and draw focus away from the article. Perhaps as they contain advertising material that is the intent. But it doesn't do much for me. Take it all with a grain of salt, I think it was Keith Richards who had a comment about opinions being like... :)
asjo 14y ago
"Horrid" is a bit harsh, but the typography choices are hard to understand, at least as rendered on my screen: * http://koldfront.dk/misc/hn/sg.png http://koldfront.dk/misc/hn/sg.png The font for the main text is oddly changing between being very thin/light and on some select letters quite fat (v, A). The links are _very_ bold, impeding reading. Other than that I think your design nice and simple.