4 ms·

Sure, simple text is fine for a blog. But if I'm selling something like a piece of art it's all about the images: large, high-quality images from multiple angle

Sure, simple text is fine for a blog. But if I'm selling something like a piece of art it's all about the images: large, high-quality images from multiple angles. Pinterest wouldn't be called minimalist, but it does a damn fine job of accomplishing its goals. Design should help accomplish business (or personal) goals. We run into trouble when we adopt some sort of "minimalism, always, ever, for everything" dogma.

mijustin 13y ago
I agree. "If additional styling, image, media, or script gives the audience something more - then add it."
- dbrian 13y ago
  But that's what minimalism is. You can say the same thing in reverse.. "If it doesn't give the audience more understanding - then leave it out."
bad_user 13y ago
> We run into trouble when we adopt some sort of "minimalism, always, ever, for everything" dogma. Evidence? Examples?
- cma 13y ago
  Unix-style "bunch of small processes communicating through pipes" model when applied in inappropriate domains.
- devilshaircut 13y ago
  Is it not self-obvious that if every page attempting to serve up content similar to that in the OP (pictureless editorial), the web would be bleak and characterless? Not debating the effectiveness of that kind of design, but rather pointing out the obviousness that this sort of anti-"always, ever" statement is easily validated.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    Most of the web is awash in ugly junk. Whenever I go to a machine that doesn't have adblock, Ghostery etc., I am increasingly horrified. It's like a highway with so many billboards that you can't see the direction signs, never mind enjoy the view. That or some sort of infinite supermarket magazine rack. I HATE the way web design has evolved. I want to make the design choices at my end, not have them imposed on me or consuming a ridiculous amount of bandwidth. Most of the design on the web is no good.
    - devilshaircut 13y ago
      Having webpages that are not bleak and characterless is not a resignation to having webpages that are like highways with unending billboards.
      - anigbrowl 13y ago
        I don't find text to be bleak or characterless; if it needs design that badly, then it's not well-written. And judging by the audience for things like ReadItLater and so on, I'm not alone. I just want the option to read text the way I want, not how someone thinks I ought to be see it, which is more often about getting me to look that providing me with a comfortable reading experience.
        devilshaircut 13y ago
        I didn't say text is bleak and characterless. I said that having no design variation is bleak and characterless.
        anigbrowl 13y ago
        Then style the web as you fit on your own browser, but don't try to impose your design sensibilities on mine. That's why I keep saying 'client side'. I prefer not to download and process most of the graphic cruft that I see, and vastly prefer reading articles in an RSS reader to visitng pages that remind me of being a shopping mall.
- derleth 13y ago
  Use only the text editor ed for your next project. Oh, and no version control. Don't tell me that's impossible, either, because we both know it isn't.
  - bad_user 13y ago
    That's a stupid analogy dude.
    - derleth 13y ago
      Why? It's minimalism, isn't it?
Kurtz79 13y ago
I think the author clearly states: "Think about the words first, than the rest". I didn't read it as a call to minimalism, more so as "It does not matter how flashy your site is, if in the end you have really nothing to say." It's hard to disagree, honestly (it's also plain common sense, nothing groundbreaking, although the minimalist presentation really helps driving home the point).
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- mikeg8 13y ago
  Completely agree
roc 13y ago
Just s/words/content, if you like. If your content is pictures, the same philosophy applies: ditch any ornamentation that gets in the way, just post your damn pictures. If you're selling the pictures? Get the pictures out there and get the "buy" controls out there. It's still minimalism, and all it's saying is: "if your goal is to show pictures, that fancy layout that pushes all your content into a slick grid of thumbnails, just so people can see some slick fly-out animation when they're clicked upon, is probably just wasting everyone's time."
janekk 13y ago
Exactly. Relying on words conflicts with the popular concept "show, don't tell". So I think the author's point only applies to a subset of web pages. From my perspective, I want to see screenshots of your app (or preferably try it with a non-signup demo) - I don't want to read a bleeding heart story about your motivation for it. Give me a tagline at best for that. App web pages need to be designed like HyperCards or PowerPoint presentations - where you aim to lower the number of points on the screen to retain attention.

mijustin 13y ago

I agree. "If additional styling, image, media, or script gives the audience something more - then add it."

dbrian 13y ago
But that's what minimalism is. You can say the same thing in reverse.. "If it doesn't give the audience more understanding - then leave it out."

bad_user 13y ago

> We run into trouble when we adopt some sort of "minimalism, always, ever, for everything" dogma. Evidence? Examples?

cma 13y ago
Unix-style "bunch of small processes communicating through pipes" model when applied in inappropriate domains.
devilshaircut 13y ago
Is it not self-obvious that if every page attempting to serve up content similar to that in the OP (pictureless editorial), the web would be bleak and characterless? Not debating the effectiveness of that kind of design, but rather pointing out the obviousness that this sort of anti-"always, ever" statement is easily validated.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Most of the web is awash in ugly junk. Whenever I go to a machine that doesn't have adblock, Ghostery etc., I am increasingly horrified. It's like a highway with so many billboards that you can't see the direction signs, never mind enjoy the view. That or some sort of infinite supermarket magazine rack. I HATE the way web design has evolved. I want to make the design choices at my end, not have them imposed on me or consuming a ridiculous amount of bandwidth. Most of the design on the web is no good.
  - devilshaircut 13y ago
    Having webpages that are not bleak and characterless is not a resignation to having webpages that are like highways with unending billboards.
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      I don't find text to be bleak or characterless; if it needs design that badly, then it's not well-written. And judging by the audience for things like ReadItLater and so on, I'm not alone. I just want the option to read text the way I want, not how someone thinks I ought to be see it, which is more often about getting me to look that providing me with a comfortable reading experience.
      - devilshaircut 13y ago
        I didn't say text is bleak and characterless. I said that having no design variation is bleak and characterless.
        anigbrowl 13y ago
        Then style the web as you fit on your own browser, but don't try to impose your design sensibilities on mine. That's why I keep saying 'client side'. I prefer not to download and process most of the graphic cruft that I see, and vastly prefer reading articles in an RSS reader to visitng pages that remind me of being a shopping mall.
derleth 13y ago
Use only the text editor ed for your next project. Oh, and no version control. Don't tell me that's impossible, either, because we both know it isn't.
- bad_user 13y ago
  That's a stupid analogy dude.
  - derleth 13y ago
    Why? It's minimalism, isn't it?

Kurtz79 13y ago

I think the author clearly states: "Think about the words first, than the rest". I didn't read it as a call to minimalism, more so as "It does not matter how flashy your site is, if in the end you have really nothing to say." It's hard to disagree, honestly (it's also plain common sense, nothing groundbreaking, although the minimalist presentation really helps driving home the point).

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
mikeg8 13y ago
Completely agree

roc 13y ago

Just s/words/content, if you like. If your content is pictures, the same philosophy applies: ditch any ornamentation that gets in the way, just post your damn pictures. If you're selling the pictures? Get the pictures out there and get the "buy" controls out there. It's still minimalism, and all it's saying is: "if your goal is to show pictures, that fancy layout that pushes all your content into a slick grid of thumbnails, just so people can see some slick fly-out animation when they're clicked upon, is probably just wasting everyone's time."

janekk 13y ago

Exactly. Relying on words conflicts with the popular concept "show, don't tell". So I think the author's point only applies to a subset of web pages. From my perspective, I want to see screenshots of your app (or preferably try it with a non-signup demo) - I don't want to read a bleeding heart story about your motivation for it. Give me a tagline at best for that. App web pages need to be designed like HyperCards or PowerPoint presentations - where you aim to lower the number of points on the screen to retain attention.