5 ms·

I don't see the point of these manifesto-rants. To quote : "designers with goals often counter to our own interests". Well of course and it's perfectly fine. Th

I don't see the point of these manifesto-rants. To quote : "designers with goals often counter to our own interests". Well of course and it's perfectly fine. The website you visit is not yours, and is not made to comply to all of your demands. If you don't like what you see don't visit it. The day you pay to visit a website, you will have the right to complain.

enno 11y ago
What the article proposes is an extreme position, and while I don't agree that the entire web can work this way, a lot of it can. Look at the page you're currently viewing (hacker news): It's by no means a terrible experience, and yet it manages to check all the boxes: it has no javascript necessary for viewing (there is one function for voting, but that is non-essential), no proprietary plugins, no ads, no visual clutter, doesn't download fonts, no tracking, and if I just want to read content, no account is required. So we see that it's not impossible to make sites that follow the goals of this "manifesto", and I would say that all of these non-features speaks in favor of the quality of HN. Clearly, there are sites that do not follow these guidelines, and their business model makes it impossible for them to do so (Facebook, anyone?). As a consumer, which one of those would I rather use?
- clemlais 11y ago
  That's exactly my point. Most users do not care about javascript, css override and whatnot. Web designers build website with their specifics goals in minds (maximise revenue, maximise viewers etc...). And thats fine, that's what make the web viable. I am not saying it's impossible to build a website following that manifesto, as indeed HN is pretty close, but HN target a specific audience. Their designers didn't search to monetize but to maximise their presence on the web. In that case their interests do not conflict with yours (no advertisements, simple design etc..). They did not design HN with your specific preferences in mind but the majority of viewers. "As a consumer, which one of those would I rather use?" Well you might prefer HN to Facebook design, but the majority of Facebook users would not.

enno 11y ago

What the article proposes is an extreme position, and while I don't agree that the entire web can work this way, a lot of it can. Look at the page you're currently viewing (hacker news): It's by no means a terrible experience, and yet it manages to check all the boxes: it has no javascript necessary for viewing (there is one function for voting, but that is non-essential), no proprietary plugins, no ads, no visual clutter, doesn't download fonts, no tracking, and if I just want to read content, no account is required. So we see that it's not impossible to make sites that follow the goals of this "manifesto", and I would say that all of these non-features speaks in favor of the quality of HN. Clearly, there are sites that do not follow these guidelines, and their business model makes it impossible for them to do so (Facebook, anyone?). As a consumer, which one of those would I rather use?

clemlais 11y ago
That's exactly my point. Most users do not care about javascript, css override and whatnot. Web designers build website with their specifics goals in minds (maximise revenue, maximise viewers etc...). And thats fine, that's what make the web viable. I am not saying it's impossible to build a website following that manifesto, as indeed HN is pretty close, but HN target a specific audience. Their designers didn't search to monetize but to maximise their presence on the web. In that case their interests do not conflict with yours (no advertisements, simple design etc..). They did not design HN with your specific preferences in mind but the majority of viewers. "As a consumer, which one of those would I rather use?" Well you might prefer HN to Facebook design, but the majority of Facebook users would not.