5 ms·

This thread is bringing the worst of Hacker News out of the woodwork. The author is not claiming to be a design expert, nor is she publishing a "how to design"

This thread is bringing the worst of Hacker News out of the woodwork. The author is not claiming to be a design expert, nor is she publishing a "how to design" guide. She's demonstrating a skill which I think a lot of developers could use: taking Bootstrap, which is a good start for a front end these days, and making it not look like Bootstrap. She even says this in TFA. It's for developers without a designer to make their site look half-decent in half an hour. That's the TITLE. Since we all like MVPs and demo days here, I would think this is applicable to a lot of people on Hacker News. You want to stand apart from the other ten demoing startups that used Bootstrap as well, don't you? Put a little effort in, which is all she is advocating. Based on the quality of the majority of the comments here it seems like most people opened it, saw the ugly design of the site which is only publishing her work (she didn't design it), made it a few paragraphs in, then ran back to comment about how articles like this are killing our profession, making them ill, making them cry, or how she shouldn't be giving design advice. Dreadful. Truly dreadful. You're better people than this.

pseut 14y ago
1. It's Saturday night. 2. It still looks like bootstrap. Telling people, "use bootstrap, but quickly change the fonts and colors and maybe add some images" isn't helpful. I wouldn't mind an article outlining how to use LESS to make bootstrap not look like bootstrap (which would involve, at a minimum, not using a 12-column grid, because I associate that with bootstrap more than anything else). And that seems like something developers should be interested in. 3. There are an ungodly number of blog posts that say, "use bootstrap, but change the fonts etc so that it doesn't look like bootstrap." The specific details: "use textures" for example, made the example site look worse, so it's hard to see what this article added.
- tomjen3 14y ago
  A comment like that is not helpful; bootstrap is not a bad design and would be a lot better than what you would see on most geek designed sites. In other words, get of your high horse.
  - pseut 14y ago
    Didn't mean to come across as anti-bootstrap. I use it! It's the "tweak it" part of these articles I don't like.
    - tomjen3 14y ago
      Then I would like to extend my appologies for the harshness of my comment.
      - pseut 14y ago
        No worries, the comment let me know that I needed to clarify what I wrote earlier, so I appreciated it.
- jspthrowaway2 14y ago
  > 1. It's Saturday night. Granted. > 2. It still looks like bootstrap. To you and me. > I wouldn't mind an article outlining how to use LESS to make bootstrap not look like bootstrap (which would involve, at a minimum, not using a 12-column grid, because I associate that with bootstrap more than anything else). And that seems like something developers should be interested in. Please write it.
- mattrepl 14y ago
  Can you really identify the number of columns being used by looking at a layout? And is Bootstrap the only one to use 12-columns? I've used Bootstrap as a starting point for several apps and have modified the grid setup before, but it wasn't because I thought it looked like Bootstrap.
  - pseut 14y ago
    I probably can't guess the number of columns in the grid just by looking at the webpage, but tons of landing pages break up their explanation/details into 2 or 3 columns below the header, and (I suspect) that's a direct result of Bootstrap's 12 column grid. And that's all fine, because it gives these pages a standard structure so that they're easy to navigate and I wouldn't suggest that people change it just for its own sake. If there's a good reason to change it, definitely do it, but otherwise leave it alone. I'm not anti-bootstrap and, to my untrained eye, it encourages pretty good design. My only point is that it takes a lot more than changing fonts and colors to make a website look not-bootstrappy, so one should only make the changes and tweaks that have a specific purpose. Changing the colors to match other websites within the same organization makes sense, but changing the colors because, to quote the article, "that button and that menu still both look awfully Bootstrappy" doesn't make sense, unless you are a designer.
justjimmy 14y ago
"Based on the quality of the majority of the comments here it seems like most people opened it, saw the ugly design of the site which is only publishing her work (she didn't design it), made it a few paragraphs in, then ran back to comment about how articles like this are killing our profession, making them ill, or making them cry, or how she shouldn't be giving design advice." Do you not see the irony? We are visual creatures, we judge a book by its cover (and the only time we don't do that is if we know the author or it's recommended to us) That site reminded me of Geocities (though not as bad), I'm already put off from reading it. That was my first impression. But with so many comments, I forced myself to read through it. With a bad taste in the reader's mouth, they start off immediately with a negative impression, which could explain why a lot of negative comments. My issue is that the author thinks half an hour is sufficient enough to make a their site look 'half-decent' or make it non-boot strap like. As a non-designer, it's not that easy. Her points are valid though, just a lil optimistic with the time. Another easy way to make it non boot strap like is get rid of the gradient on the buttons. Go flat with a border, ala Google Style.
- jspthrowaway2 14y ago
  That's a fair point, even if it's unfair to the author (the site publishing her could use some work, granted). If one does bail on the article, though, I wish that wouldn't lead to a comment of some kind.
  - drewmclellan 14y ago
    As the publisher of said site, an honest, genuine question to you both (or any who share their opinion) - what is it about the site design that turns you off so much? What 'work' does it need, in your view? (Edit: typo)
    - SeanDav 14y ago
      For me it is all the watermarking effects, with background and foreground elements becoming merged. This creates a cluttered effect needlessly, because without these I think the site would be a lot more pleasant to look at with no other changes.
54mf 14y ago
Mostly, I just find it frustrating that you and the author are presuming that taking Bootstrap and, as self-proclaimed non-designers, "making it not look like Bootstrap" is a good thing. Good design isn't just a thing that happens when you put a cool font on a photo. I'd be less irked if the article was about finding and installing great Bootstrap themes. Also: 24 Ways' design has, and has had, an excellent design for years and years. The colors are a bit interesting, but the typography and layout is wonderful. Also also: you're building quite the straw man there. No one said the article was killing anything, illing anything, or making anyone cry. I definitely wouldn't take the author's design advice, though.
- metellus 14y ago
  > Also also: you're building quite the straw man there. No one said the article was killing anything, illing anything, or making anyone cry. jspthrowaway2 was paraphrasing other comments on this page. When this article was newer, all of the top comments where about how terrible the design is. Here are some direct quotes from other comments on this story: > the fact that this person is trying to promote this exact idea makes me ill > I'm crying. Why is this the #1 story? And how can a person with such a hideous looking site give design advice? > We're supposed to take design advice from a site that looks like a car accident? No thanks.
- jspthrowaway2 14y ago
  Your comment was the direct inspiration for mine and I hated everything about it. It wasn't good enough for you to share your opinion as a designer, you had to attack the author personally because she had the gall to design a bit even though she wasn't a bloody designer. Really attacking the messenger. Half of me suspected you and others reacted as you did because she's a woman, to be quite honest, even though I know that's probably untrue; that just tells you how much I loathed your comment. Suffice to say, this thread is reflecting pretty badly on you as a person and you should reconsider your attitude.
  - 54mf 14y ago
    Accusing me of sexism is completely out of line. I attacked the author professionally because I don't think she's right about design. Professionally, I lauded her programming and writing accomplishments in another comment, and I'm sure she's perfectly qualified to write about those topics. I'd gladly learn from them. Personally, I have no idea who the author is. I'm sure she's a wonderful person. Regardless, I'm done here. I'd be happy to have a civil discussion on the matter, but it's clear you're not capable. Passive-aggressively calling me sexist while hiding behind a throwaway account is trolling, plain and simple, and tolerating you isn't worth my time.
mikeash 14y ago
Can you imagine an article about writing clearly and effectively whch ws wrtn all lik dis??!# It sez good shit, wy u care f its all txtspk? No, you need to avoid demonstrating the opposite of what you're setting out to teach at the very first moment. Don't put an obvious SQL injection in the form that leads to your article on web security. Don't use a hyperactive loudmouth to promote your massage therapy business. And don't put an article about web design on a site that hurts the eyes. Is it her fault? I guess not, although I imagine she knew what the site looked like even if she didn't actually design it. Does it mean that the content is worthless? Of course not. Is it a huge red flag that really should not be there? Oh yes.
bconway 14y ago
I think you're missing that this article was posted in jest.
- jspthrowaway2 14y ago
  [citation needed]
hakaaak 14y ago
I think "dreadful" is really harsh. Every site should not look like default bootstrap. That would be incredibly boring. But, that said, I think it would have been better without everything between the font change and the color scheme change removed. For example, the icon is an additional unnecessary visual element- either use text or an icon- if you have both it means that one or the other is insufficient on their own and that is a bad design smell -> simplify! Textures are ok, but a bad example- the only change I could tell was the missing horizontal rules/grey lines. The alpine background- meh, even for a ski lodge- this isn't a cheesy blog. The CSS change I could barely tell.
- uxwtf 14y ago
  Agree that adding an icon on the button is useless, but as I work with developers, I see that it's the way some developers understand UI and UX - adding an icon equals designing! As for the textures, I suggest myself everybody using subtle patterns, but, again, the mistake here is adding an extra alpine background image: the thing I saw several times when developers tried to make efforts in UI, lol! But the good thing is that this topic really makes people react!
- mcgwiz 14y ago
  The CSS change is only visible in the screenshot that introduced the background image. In that screenshot, a white glow effect has been applied to the main header.

pseut 14y ago

1. It's Saturday night. 2. It still looks like bootstrap. Telling people, "use bootstrap, but quickly change the fonts and colors and maybe add some images" isn't helpful. I wouldn't mind an article outlining how to use LESS to make bootstrap not look like bootstrap (which would involve, at a minimum, not using a 12-column grid, because I associate that with bootstrap more than anything else). And that seems like something developers should be interested in. 3. There are an ungodly number of blog posts that say, "use bootstrap, but change the fonts etc so that it doesn't look like bootstrap." The specific details: "use textures" for example, made the example site look worse, so it's hard to see what this article added.

tomjen3 14y ago
A comment like that is not helpful; bootstrap is not a bad design and would be a lot better than what you would see on most geek designed sites. In other words, get of your high horse.
- pseut 14y ago
  Didn't mean to come across as anti-bootstrap. I use it! It's the "tweak it" part of these articles I don't like.
  - tomjen3 14y ago
    Then I would like to extend my appologies for the harshness of my comment.
    - pseut 14y ago
      No worries, the comment let me know that I needed to clarify what I wrote earlier, so I appreciated it.
jspthrowaway2 14y ago
> 1. It's Saturday night. Granted. > 2. It still looks like bootstrap. To you and me. > I wouldn't mind an article outlining how to use LESS to make bootstrap not look like bootstrap (which would involve, at a minimum, not using a 12-column grid, because I associate that with bootstrap more than anything else). And that seems like something developers should be interested in. Please write it.
mattrepl 14y ago
Can you really identify the number of columns being used by looking at a layout? And is Bootstrap the only one to use 12-columns? I've used Bootstrap as a starting point for several apps and have modified the grid setup before, but it wasn't because I thought it looked like Bootstrap.
- pseut 14y ago
  I probably can't guess the number of columns in the grid just by looking at the webpage, but tons of landing pages break up their explanation/details into 2 or 3 columns below the header, and (I suspect) that's a direct result of Bootstrap's 12 column grid. And that's all fine, because it gives these pages a standard structure so that they're easy to navigate and I wouldn't suggest that people change it just for its own sake. If there's a good reason to change it, definitely do it, but otherwise leave it alone. I'm not anti-bootstrap and, to my untrained eye, it encourages pretty good design. My only point is that it takes a lot more than changing fonts and colors to make a website look not-bootstrappy, so one should only make the changes and tweaks that have a specific purpose. Changing the colors to match other websites within the same organization makes sense, but changing the colors because, to quote the article, "that button and that menu still both look awfully Bootstrappy" doesn't make sense, unless you are a designer.

justjimmy 14y ago

"Based on the quality of the majority of the comments here it seems like most people opened it, saw the ugly design of the site which is only publishing her work (she didn't design it), made it a few paragraphs in, then ran back to comment about how articles like this are killing our profession, making them ill, or making them cry, or how she shouldn't be giving design advice." Do you not see the irony? We are visual creatures, we judge a book by its cover (and the only time we don't do that is if we know the author or it's recommended to us) That site reminded me of Geocities (though not as bad), I'm already put off from reading it. That was my first impression. But with so many comments, I forced myself to read through it. With a bad taste in the reader's mouth, they start off immediately with a negative impression, which could explain why a lot of negative comments. My issue is that the author thinks half an hour is sufficient enough to make a their site look 'half-decent' or make it non-boot strap like. As a non-designer, it's not that easy. Her points are valid though, just a lil optimistic with the time. Another easy way to make it non boot strap like is get rid of the gradient on the buttons. Go flat with a border, ala Google Style.

jspthrowaway2 14y ago
That's a fair point, even if it's unfair to the author (the site publishing her could use some work, granted). If one does bail on the article, though, I wish that wouldn't lead to a comment of some kind.
- drewmclellan 14y ago
  As the publisher of said site, an honest, genuine question to you both (or any who share their opinion) - what is it about the site design that turns you off so much? What 'work' does it need, in your view? (Edit: typo)
  - SeanDav 14y ago
    For me it is all the watermarking effects, with background and foreground elements becoming merged. This creates a cluttered effect needlessly, because without these I think the site would be a lot more pleasant to look at with no other changes.

54mf 14y ago

Mostly, I just find it frustrating that you and the author are presuming that taking Bootstrap and, as self-proclaimed non-designers, "making it not look like Bootstrap" is a good thing. Good design isn't just a thing that happens when you put a cool font on a photo. I'd be less irked if the article was about finding and installing great Bootstrap themes. Also: 24 Ways' design has, and has had, an excellent design for years and years. The colors are a bit interesting, but the typography and layout is wonderful. Also also: you're building quite the straw man there. No one said the article was killing anything, illing anything, or making anyone cry. I definitely wouldn't take the author's design advice, though.

metellus 14y ago
> Also also: you're building quite the straw man there. No one said the article was killing anything, illing anything, or making anyone cry. jspthrowaway2 was paraphrasing other comments on this page. When this article was newer, all of the top comments where about how terrible the design is. Here are some direct quotes from other comments on this story: > the fact that this person is trying to promote this exact idea makes me ill > I'm crying. Why is this the #1 story? And how can a person with such a hideous looking site give design advice? > We're supposed to take design advice from a site that looks like a car accident? No thanks.
jspthrowaway2 14y ago
Your comment was the direct inspiration for mine and I hated everything about it. It wasn't good enough for you to share your opinion as a designer, you had to attack the author personally because she had the gall to design a bit even though she wasn't a bloody designer. Really attacking the messenger. Half of me suspected you and others reacted as you did because she's a woman, to be quite honest, even though I know that's probably untrue; that just tells you how much I loathed your comment. Suffice to say, this thread is reflecting pretty badly on you as a person and you should reconsider your attitude.
- 54mf 14y ago
  Accusing me of sexism is completely out of line. I attacked the author professionally because I don't think she's right about design. Professionally, I lauded her programming and writing accomplishments in another comment, and I'm sure she's perfectly qualified to write about those topics. I'd gladly learn from them. Personally, I have no idea who the author is. I'm sure she's a wonderful person. Regardless, I'm done here. I'd be happy to have a civil discussion on the matter, but it's clear you're not capable. Passive-aggressively calling me sexist while hiding behind a throwaway account is trolling, plain and simple, and tolerating you isn't worth my time.

mikeash 14y ago

Can you imagine an article about writing clearly and effectively whch ws wrtn all lik dis??!# It sez good shit, wy u care f its all txtspk? No, you need to avoid demonstrating the opposite of what you're setting out to teach at the very first moment. Don't put an obvious SQL injection in the form that leads to your article on web security. Don't use a hyperactive loudmouth to promote your massage therapy business. And don't put an article about web design on a site that hurts the eyes. Is it her fault? I guess not, although I imagine she knew what the site looked like even if she didn't actually design it. Does it mean that the content is worthless? Of course not. Is it a huge red flag that really should not be there? Oh yes.

bconway 14y ago

I think you're missing that this article was posted in jest.

jspthrowaway2 14y ago
[citation needed]

hakaaak 14y ago

I think "dreadful" is really harsh. Every site should not look like default bootstrap. That would be incredibly boring. But, that said, I think it would have been better without everything between the font change and the color scheme change removed. For example, the icon is an additional unnecessary visual element- either use text or an icon- if you have both it means that one or the other is insufficient on their own and that is a bad design smell -> simplify! Textures are ok, but a bad example- the only change I could tell was the missing horizontal rules/grey lines. The alpine background- meh, even for a ski lodge- this isn't a cheesy blog. The CSS change I could barely tell.

uxwtf 14y ago
Agree that adding an icon on the button is useless, but as I work with developers, I see that it's the way some developers understand UI and UX - adding an icon equals designing! As for the textures, I suggest myself everybody using subtle patterns, but, again, the mistake here is adding an extra alpine background image: the thing I saw several times when developers tried to make efforts in UI, lol! But the good thing is that this topic really makes people react!
mcgwiz 14y ago
The CSS change is only visible in the screenshot that introduced the background image. In that screenshot, a white glow effect has been applied to the main header.