7 ms·

Replying to comments about our web page design

282 points by nhanb 3y ago

have_faith 3y ago
The only thing the design needs is a max width on the paragraphs for large screens.
- blowski 3y ago
  I suspect they would reply with "resize your browser window".
  - kevincox 3y ago
    This is shockingly common but do these people resize their window for every site they visit? Or they keep the window narrow and then sites with side navigation need to put it somewhere else? Having a large window should be telling the site "you have this space, make the best of it". Maybe it would be nice to have a built-in CSS property for "desired reading text width" but I think most people can pick a number and it is generally good for most readers.
    - blowski 3y ago
      I don't resize for every window, but I'm also not bothered about having to resize it if and when it makes sense. It takes longer type in a domain name, so it's hardly a big deal.
    - camgunz 3y ago
      I'm one of those non-fullscreen browser (and most things in general, other than vim) window people. > Having a large window should be telling the site "you have this space, make the best of it" I 100% agree but I interpret this in reverse: if I made my browser window gigantic I expect you to use it. If I make my browser window small I expect you to responsively shrink. The reason this doesn't happen is that it's pretty hard to build layouts that work across all these different screen sizes. That's generally why you get mobile/tablet/1600x900 desktop layouts and that's it. --- I suspect this is another consequence of the app vs. text tension on the web. Apps are great to fullscreen: you want Spotify or Figma to take up the whole window. You don't want a single sentence to unfurl entirely horizontally. But there's no way to say, "I'm the kind of user who sets the browser window size to as much as you can use, so use it all" or "I'm the kind of user who wants you to center your text elements and take up at most 1600px of space even when my browser window is using 3800px."
      - TylerE 3y ago
        Well, you could do something smart with CSS columns, but nobody does that.
    - philistine 3y ago
      Are you perhaps a Windows user accustomed to maximized windows only?
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      > This is shockingly common but do these people resize their window for every site they visit? I don't. I never use my browser full-screen, but I do size it in whatever way makes it work with whatever else I have going on on my desktop. Usually, this is a very small window. If that makes a site unusable, and if the site isn't essential, then I just move on to a different site. I'm not going to rearrange things just to accommodate the whims of some random web designer.
jpswade 3y ago
Comes across as awfully defensive... Is this a satire website? I can't tell.
- hgsgm 3y ago
  They are earnest trolls. They appear to be freelance contracting consultants, for people who need temporary work to solve a software problem. They don't care about being approachable or having a readable website. They do care about looking like smart edgy programmers, presumably because they only want to be hired by people who like smart edgy programmers. But I couldn't find how to hire them, so the whole thing may just be a goof for one person's personal hobby tech blog.
j-bos 3y ago
I really like the site and the qa thread. A criticism: The site/theme info footer is off center to the right on Samsung Galaxy browsers (ff, chrome, etc), hiding half the footer text.
FridgeSeal 3y ago
Honestly the design is a breath of fresh (tropical) air. And the scrolling is sooo smooth.
rolph 3y ago
in many cases, i turn off the page style. this is one of them. if i really feel i need the info and de-styling wont work, then i read the source. if to no avail, i go elsewhere.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > i read the source. You mean I'm not the only one who does this?? I think I end up doing that on about 25% of the websites I hit.
dagorenouf 3y ago
The contrarian approach generates free marketing and serves as a filter to pain-in-the-ass clients who will nitpick about everything. Well played.
JohnFen 3y ago
Wow, the people running that website are pissed.
- rektide 3y ago
  The whole website is playful as fuck. This 100% felt like more playful teasing. At the expense of those who refuse to have a good time, who can't roll with it, who let themselves be tattered by tiny things. It just going on and on and on just keeps highlighting how in depth & considerate & thoughtful they really are & keeps bringing out the joke more, about how hilarious & fun it is & how great it is to have such an amusing conversation piece. This page is their moment of glory, a secret shrine to how awesome they are. The hurf-burf "this isn't 90's web design!" being way over precise & technical about the matter was a hilarious example of them just being here to have fun & be smart about shit.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    I guess that's the problem with extreme snark. It's very culturally dependent and doesn't always translate well when taken out of the social setting that it grew in. That page doesn't read to me as playful or fun, it reads to me as angry and bitter. Although I understand (now) that's not what they were going for, I can't make my brain read it any other way.
    - rektide 3y ago
      The whole experience drives a huge wedge into folks, as we see from the very strong breakdown of very negative vs very positive. The site's whole premise comes at the expense of severely agitating some people. Doubling down seems like the obvious move. I don't there's a real possibility of useful dialog or outreach with the discontent; making oveure's to a non-addressable market just doesn't make sense. And it's not like they have particularly bad points either. They're over the top but basically counter-roasting far more over the top griping, for the most part. It's all pretty well constructed. I don't think they cause any additional or excess damage with this. I don't always think shiboleths or in-comments are wise, but here in particular I think it adds greatly. It's almost entirely just people's disposition & response we see for how folks perceive this, and not at all cultural or information based. The context in question is mostly the reader themselves. This continues to parlay the grand-joke about emotions & people well, to me.
nhanb 3y ago
I've always liked ExoticSilicon's design, but not until this post did I realize their smart bit of CSS for default font size: font-size: min(max(1em, 1.3vw), 1.3em); Which explains why it looks just right on my high-DPI Chromebook even though I haven't configured a big enough default font size for the browser. This is going to be the default font-size for all of my websites now (preceded by a fallback for maximum compatibility of course).
- LanternLight83 3y ago
  I've always loved the site too c:
- notRobot 3y ago
  Here's an explanation of this expression from Phind: https://www.phind.com/search?cache=bd161914-4d18-4758-b540-246f42d79a4a https://www.phind.com/search?cache=bd161914-4d18-4758-b540-2...
  - andy_ppp 3y ago
    Make the font scale from a minimum of 1em to 1.3% of the screen width with a maximum width of 1.3em?
  - hgsgm 3y ago
    Amazing how many words is uses to say nothing. The only mysterious parts of the expression are how the em and wv units work.
- eajakobsen 3y ago
  If you want it to be even more readable you could do the following: font-size: clamp(1em, 1.3vw, 1.3em); I would also consider using `rem` instead of `em` incase you want to use it anywhere other than the root element.
  - nhanb 3y ago
    I would only use this kind of thing on the root element, then size all other elements relative to the root element e.g. h1 { font-size: 1.5rem; }. It's more manageable that way IMHO. Thanks for the tip on clamp() by the way, TIL.
petercooper 3y ago
That's it, I've completed the Internet. This is my new favorite page. The aesthete in me may bristle, but the pragmatist agrees. There are many ergonomic and UX concerns to consider when designing things, but I think they make their case very well and I didn't find it a problem to read at all.
- pas 3y ago
  the background distracts too much, but otherwise it's pretty readable.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    There are various themes and it works well on mobile and doesn’t look like every single other website out there today, so I count it as a win. It’s kind of how so many LaTeX documents look the same because nobody bothers to design anything; the inverse problem from Word where things are too easy to change.
    - doodlesdev 3y ago
      > It’s kind of how so many LaTeX documents look the same because nobody bothers to design anything I see that as a feature honestly.
      - bombcar 3y ago
        Oh, it certainly is, but the further you drift from "scientific report/research paper" the worse the defaults get.
sethammons 3y ago
> my designs draw from styles and concepts typical of 8-bit computer magazines in the late 1980s and early 1990s I think they channel the feeling quite well
tpowell 3y ago
If you enjoy a bit of well-done nostalgia, I suggest giving vacation.inc [1] a try, too (same guys from poolsuite.net [2]). [1] https://www.vacation.inc https://www.vacation.inc [2] https://poolsuite.net https://poolsuite.net
- spatulon 3y ago
  Is that Apple Garamond?
- pell 3y ago
  Big fan of Poolsuite! Another one is here: https://www.vistaserv.net/ https://www.vistaserv.net/ The font rendering is especially impressive to me. You can read more about it here: https://www.vistaserv.net/blog/90s-fonts-modern-browsers https://www.vistaserv.net/blog/90s-fonts-modern-browsers
kyleyeats 3y ago
I love the indignation over being accused of 90s web design when they are actually in fact inspired by 90s print design.
- kloch 3y ago
  Yes. Their design reminds me of WIRED magazine from the 1990's, not at all like web pages from the 1990's.
8ig8 3y ago
> You agree not to use the content to train AI systems or machine learning systems. https://research.exoticsilicon.com/terms https://research.exoticsilicon.com/terms First I’ve seen that.
- capableweb 3y ago
  Seems unlikely to be enforceable as "overly expansive", as someone could surely argue our brains are just AI and/or ML but in organic form. Does that mean I'm not allowed to learn from the website?
  - weird-eye-issue 3y ago
    Are you aware of what the "A" in AI and the "M" in ML stand for?
    - capableweb 3y ago
      No, I work in a field without having zero idea what the most basic terminology actually means. Are you aware what "organic" means? Have some imagination. We can call it OI and OL to make it a bit easier if you want.
      - hgsgm 3y ago
        Did you know that different words have different meanings?
      - weird-eye-issue 3y ago
        If you called something OI and OL then you wouldn't be referring to AI and ML. They would be different things. It's clearly big brain time for you...
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        > Are you aware what "organic" means? I am, but I always get an argument when I tell certain people that "all food is organic", despite the fact that's technically correct.
h2odragon 3y ago
Their "80s theme" should be more widely used
pmontra 3y ago
Well, the current trend of gradients in text colors (usually purple to blue) is something we were told not to do in the 90s, because it would make our sites look like cheap videogames from the 80s. We would be doing it with GIFs. However inventing something new is really difficult especially after the space of the ideas had been explored for a long time. As for fashion, once you exhausted all the variations of the current fad you have to start again with an old one, with a twist. The result is that all those new web sites look old to me. Exoticsilicon looks really old.
AstixAndBelix 3y ago
>progressive nothing progressive about this design. just call yourself peculiar instead of giving this veneer of betterment
- gryfft 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_web_app https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_web_app
- paulcole 3y ago
  > just call yourself peculiar instead of giving this veneer of betterment A leader in the clubhouse for the Accidental HN Slogan of the Year award.
- Veen 3y ago
  The widespread adoption of this credo would improve modern life immeasurably.
unsupp0rted 3y ago
> If you insist on trying to use ‘reader’ mode to view our webpages, then you are simply creating your own problems.
xyproto 3y ago
I think this is AI generated, because of obvious mistakes like listing elements of 90's web design which includes "sans-serif" and then in the next paragraph insisting that no 90's web design elements are used, while all the headers uses a sans-serif font.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- danuker 3y ago
  You'd probably get a reply that sans-serif fonts were invented in ancient Greece.
- nhanb 3y ago
  You misread. They said the opposite: > Websites in the, (late), 1990s were characterised by many things, but a typical list might include: > - Serif fonts
KronisLV 3y ago
Tried out all of their themes on the welcome page, which seems like a nice showcase of what's available when you switch the themes: https://research.exoticsilicon.com/welcome https://research.exoticsilicon.com/welcome Here's the aspects that I personally enjoyed: - Tropical nights: this feels like a pleasant theme on the eyes, almost like an IDE dark mode - Nitrate memories: another theme that feels fairly readable, with the contrast being okay in *most* places - Light pastels: this one dials down the colors a little bit so they're not as distracting That said, when most of the web looks more or less the same way, it feels like this site stands out too much and the design detracts from the experience, in my eyes. For example, opening the page linked in this post, you're confronted with colorful shadows, titles (the questions) in a serif font that's not as bold as the answers that come in a sans serif font, a static background for when you scroll the content that's an image that you can't quite read. I'd probably just have a chuckle about the quirky design and go browse other sites that might have the information that I'm looking for, due to my eyes scanning them more quickly and easily, much like you'd look at data in a spreadsheet (sans annoying pop-ups and other dark patterns that web is plagued with). But you know what? Their website design is none of my business, it's fine for them to make their own choices and run it how they desire, even if some of the answers on this particular page are a bit on the nose. Can't say whether we'd benefit from more or less of that, in general, though.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > That said, when most of the web looks more or less the same way, it feels like this site stands out too much and the design detracts from the experience, in my eyes. The site's design is not to my taste -- but I seriously love that it doesn't look like almost all of the rest of the web. Most of the web all looks the same. I applaud Exotic Silicon for pushing back against that.
- rektide 3y ago
  I really really miss the multi-skinned website thing. Having multiple personalities for your site was such just a rip roaring cool thing. That whole idea of a site being an experience has gotten simmered away. In many cases that reduction of friction is due & appreciated, but there's something to be said for having a bit of an experience too, even if it is a kind of shallow/transactional bit. My first webshack internship had a nice website with like 20+ very slick early web designs folks could switch between. So cool. There's the Css Zen Garden, a set of html elements to practice your design chops on. That was so the spirit of web design, highlighted so powerfully how bodaciously rad having html structured information & css styling as separate entities was, rather than as almost all UI toolkit do having the two concerns more intermingled. Zen Garden Forever. https://www.csszengarden.com/ https://www.csszengarden.com/
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
renewiltord 3y ago
Haha, this is great. Present as you will. Don't enslave yourselves to the refinement culture horde. It's okay.
activitypea 3y ago
They want the Cruelty Squad audience
zagrebian 3y ago
> Stop using the site immediately and consult a qualified ophthalmologist. Seriously, no static display on a modern and correctly adjusted VDU such as a computer monitor or phone screen should ever be inducing headaches or eyestrain in a healthy individual when properly used for reasonable time periods, and with sufficient breaks. If it is, you may have an underlying health condition which has otherwise gone un-noticed. So they’re saying that they’re aware that their website is inaccessible to some people with certain health conditions, and they don’t intend to do anything about it. That’s like if a grocery store with a staircase at the front door put up a sign that says, “If you have trouble climbing these stairs, consult your doctor. No person with healthy legs should have trouble climbing these stairs. You may have a health condition.” I mean, thanks for the advice, but you’re still excluding people.
- pmelendez 3y ago
  The tone of the website has a very tongue-in-cheek tone to me. Taking it seriously is like doing journalism research using The Onion.
  - zagrebian 3y ago
    How does a person who can’t read the text because of their health issues know that it’s tongue in cheek?
    - blowski 3y ago
      Should the vast majority of the world who do not have those health issues be deprived of its glory, because there is a minority who - very sadly and unfortunately for them - cannot look at it? Should Picasso not have bothered painting since some people are blind? Should Tolstoy not have written War and Peace because some people do not have the reading level to cope with such a complex book? Should Maria Callas not have sung so beautifully because the deaf would never be able to hear her? If you are there for the content and not the design, then it works fine with a browser like Lynx. Thus all the content is entirely accessible.
nathias 3y ago
very cool, I like it
the_common_man 3y ago
Glorious website, please don't change
ezconnect 3y ago
My online gripe is I can't use reader view.
eitland 3y ago
Bookmarked for inspiration. This was seriously refreshing even if I hope most corporate websites won't copy it. Not everything needs to be hard and not everything needs to be dull.
rwky 3y ago
The 80s theme is my favourite, IMHO the easiest to read (and looks like my terminal)
Waterluvian 3y ago
It is the year 2031 and every website that didn’t adhere to modern design “sensibilities” has been hunted down and summarily executed… …well, almost every. Exotic Silicon is still at large, last seen in the vicinity of the 46 block.
fatih-erikli 3y ago
I like how the bird levitates towards banner in homepage
vrglvrglvrgl 3y ago
[dead]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
HopenHeyHi 3y ago
[flagged]
midenginedcoupe 3y ago
Reminds me of Lings Cars: https://www.lingscars.com/ https://www.lingscars.com/ Not a niche or hobbyist website, but a genuine car leasing company. Who's owner deliberately styled the site like this to act as a differentiator in a crowded market. It's certainly unique, I'll give them that.
- ricardobayes 3y ago
  Wow that average time to respond timer is nice, wish more sites did that.
  - kjs3 3y ago
    I would lease a car from that man.
    - Nekobai 3y ago
      Woman ;)
- prmoustache 3y ago
  That website is just perfect.
- xeetzer 3y ago
  This one is actually great though.
- awb 3y ago
  > You can trust me… I am Ling! Hope you enjoying your visit to LINGsCARS.com Sometimes marketing is so bad it’s good
- rchaud 3y ago
  What's most shocking about this site is that they added a mobile layout in 2022. Before it was desktop-only.
asddubs 3y ago
I think the one thing that strains the eyes a bit about the layout (besides people just using it as a metaphor for saying they don't like it) is that a lot of their themes use text shadow on all of the text, which makes it look slightly blurry, which in turn makes your eyes strain trying to focus on it.
- davidmurdoch 3y ago
  They address this and tell you your browser is broken. But also that if you are using a non-broken browser and it's still hard to read for you then that's on purpose, they want it to be hard to read for you, because their content is for healthy people only.
  - asddubs 3y ago
    they don't actually go into any detail how it's supposed to render, though. they refer to the standard but don't actually say what the browsers are supposedly doing wrong. It's not that the shadow being applied makes the text blurry somehow, it's that the shadow itself makes the text look like it's blurry, because it's very subtle. So, I don't buy it.
lukefore 3y ago
Hacker News should hire them for a refresh.
pflanze 3y ago
This site eats about 50% CPU on Firefox (on an older laptop) for every page that is open at the same time, and it continues to eat 50% after closing all pages. It doesn't use JavaScript and no visible CSS animations, so what is it? Apparently, the favicon! Which, as explained on the linked page, "is SVG, (with S.M.I.L. animation)". Since the favicon is still listed on the list of favourites on the browser start page, it continues to eat CPU... until clearing the browser history.
- twawaaay 3y ago
  "Ask Firefox developers"
- prmoustache 3y ago
  - On edge on linux (yes) cpu process usage increase as well, but not as much. - On chromium cpu usage do not evolve but it is not animating the favicon. If you want to disable it on firefox and are using ublock origin, you can do so by going to the ublock origin dashboard --> My Filters and add the following line: ||research.exoticsilicon.com/images/icon.svg
- whalesalad 3y ago
  you just need a bigger cpu, so that the site uses less.
- schnable 3y ago
  Ask the Firefox team this question!!!!!!!
- unosama 3y ago
  Another perk of staying on Firefox 83.0, the favicon doesn't even load!
hankmander 3y ago
Beautiful! Finally somebody taking the best of old and new and the result is something different!
catapart 3y ago
Design proof that being "unique" doesn't mean "good". I'm certainly glad they like what they've built. But it breaks a lot of design concepts that help with UX (some in micro ways that aren't really noticeable without the aggregate effect). The "max character width" is a really valuable thing for "readability". But why bother with learning design when you're using all of the TECHNICAL specs 'exactly as specified'. Why bother with design responsibility when you're already absolving yourself of technical responsibility ('it should not be our job to work around bad tech...'). Of course, the most galling thing is that they're not actually using the spec, as it is specified. Using `section` tags everywhere is inappropriate. They are meant to break up content in the `article` tag. But, okay, whatever; you're going to cling to the spec but still ignore the parts of it you don't like. Fine. Like they said, it's not causing screen-reader issues, so who cares, right? Except that they ALSO don't use the `header` tag within those sections to denote what is clearly a header. Not a "heading" (h1-6, used for breaking up paragraphs in articles), maybe, since it's not in an article and that can cause funky screen-reader performance, but there's no reason to NOT use a `header` tag. This use case is literally what it was made for; giving a generic header that you can style and make accessible on your own. So why use a `section` tag erroneously, but then eschew using the `header` tag for the exact purpose you need? (why use it? screen readers/accessibility) Nothing in this seems like "well-considered design". Rather it seems like "good enough, and how I like it." Which is a perfectly wonderful way to design and run a website! It's just kind of shitty to then go write an entire article telling anyone who misunderstands your uniqueness for a different flavor of uniqueness that you are actually doing everything exactly right and that anyone who dislikes your site should take their "problems" elsewhere. A fine enough attitude, if you're in to that kind of gatekeeping, but I've never found it compelling or endearing.
- msoad 3y ago
  Let me out-snob you and say those are called elements not tags.
  - catapart 3y ago
    I don't know what I said that was snobby? I replied to their article based on the points they made in said article. That aside, yes, I was wrong to use it like "[...] in the `article` tag."; well spotted.
ryandrake 3y ago
Call me old fashioned, but web sites that overdo the CSS and assert a strong design opinion just kind of annoy me now. I wish we could go back to a WWW where the browser was the user agent and the user was the authority on text size, font face, colors and so on. Browsers have devolved from applications allowing users to browse hyperTEXT into these free-for-all canvases for web designers’ creativity. Technically this should be solvable by using the browser’s “no styles” feature, but many web sites seem to be careless with the structure of their HTML such that “no styles” isn’t even readable. I know this ship has sailed and my opinion is a fart in the wind at this point, but the web could have turned into a nice, fast, consistent way to publish structured and linked TEXT, but instead we got this “Remote Photoshop for Web Designers.”
- manuelmoreale 3y ago
  I'd argue there's a good middle ground to be found between the two extremes. We should style without overstyle.
- prmoustache 3y ago
  > I wish we could go back to a WWW where the browser was the user agent and the user was the authority on text size, font face, colors and so on. This is still the case. Your browser allows you to choose which font and size you want to use, as well as editing the css loaded on a tab and most browsers have extensions available to automatically load the css of your choice for a particular site. The fact is that you choose not to use that freedom.
- cush 3y ago
  Another wonderful internet fart in the wind is bidirectional links https://maggieappleton.com/bidirectionals https://maggieappleton.com/bidirectionals
grokkedit 3y ago
does anyone know what's the string above the "NO CARRIER" written at the bottom of the page?
- koromak 3y ago
  Wondering that too. Its not an obvious encoding to my eyes.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    You're too young to understand. :)
- mikecoles 3y ago
  Mom picking up the phone and dialing Aunt Madge?
- pwg 3y ago
  Kind of looks like an attempt at simulating the "modem dropped because someone picked up an extension phone while modem was connected" result. There was often a burst of random characters like that when the link went down due to "external causes".
gbromios 3y ago
I deeply, un-ironically respect their ethos and their hideous, distracting color scheme
- rsync 3y ago
  Agreed. I have no idea who "exoticsilicon" are or if they read HN but if they do, free-for-life rsync.net accounts for any of them that care to contact us. I am already making good use of this particular piece of content: https://research.exoticsilicon.com/articles/lte_ethernet_bridge https://research.exoticsilicon.com/articles/lte_ethernet_bri...
layer8 3y ago
The one thing I would change, which only the 1980s theme fixes, at the cost of monospace text, is to make the background non-scrolling (or, rather, non-fixed).
frankfrankfrank 3y ago
Can’t really argue with most of their logic. The site is fast and responsive. I did get a sense that most if the criticism is really based on anxiety about the authors own position, i.e., a buzzword internet startup type is of course going to feel panic if it is highlighted that their fancy designs and site that is heavily reliant on violating people’s privacy and security bogs down the site and the whole internet with it. It’s typical crabs in a barrel nitpicking. And yes, I realize I just upset many sensibilities here.
nkrisc 3y ago
Couldn't actually read for very long. The content scrolling over the static background image gave me motion sickness. The 1980s theme was the only one I could stand, and the 1990s theme appears to be the same as the Tropical Days theme. All the ones with the background are essentially unusable for me. It's their site, they can do whatever they want, but it's a bit silly to act like there's something wrong with anyone who has a problem with it. For example, in the default theme the yellow text (#FFFF00) with the pink highlight (#FF00FF) fails WCAG contrast requirements across the board. Maybe the really don't care whether everyone has an easy time reading their site or not, and that's their choice, but I find the snark about it off-putting. It's not difficult to design a site that's easy for everyone to read. > But anyway, most of the material published on our research website is also available in gemtext format via our gemini server. Might be the only way I'd read this site.
- hairofadog 3y ago
  > I find the snark about it off-putting Same. I think this is one of those things where they were having some fun, and then some people on the Internet overreacted with great hyperbole, and so they're issuing this response to those people, but I'm sitting here reading it and it feels aggressive, and I think, "Wait, what did I do? I'm just sitting here not bothering anybody", and it begins to feel like a low-level conflict. I think a lot of internet discourse is like that, unfortunately.
  - jallen_dot_dev 3y ago
    Probably trying to copy the "cool"/snarky PR approach of dbrand[1] or Ryanair[2]. [1] https://twitter.com/dbrand/status/1626716812128952320 https://twitter.com/dbrand/status/1626716812128952320 [2] https://twitter.com/Ryanair/status/1569268623235231748 https://twitter.com/Ryanair/status/1569268623235231748
- catapart 3y ago
  Aye. Big "we have a developer that knows CSS" vibes, rather than "we have a designer" energy. Feels like someone should have told them the pitfalls of chasing a design that was hand-crafted for a specific format (print media; magazines, specifically), or at least why the choices that were made for that medium were made, and why they may cause issues in this medium. For that kind of stuff, though, you need someone who has a deep knowledge of design, rather than just a high skill at implementing designs. Of course, with such an obviously high skill at design implementation, they did plenty enough to be perfectly fine for most use-cases, so it's hard to be too hard on them about any of their choices. Everything works just fine. And to ignore complaints that ignore your design choices is a fine disposition, as well! No reason to bother with people who aren't interested in your vision and don't contribute. But to snark about the complaints, as if there's nothing you could do better? Smacks of an aloofness that is an off-putting characteristic for an organizations purporting to do research.
jamesandthewolf 3y ago
Ha I actually kind of like this design its a bit different but works, I think the only thing that I might say is the reading length is a bit long maybe limiting to a set width in terms of length as its difficult on large screens to read across the full page but other then this not bad. Have you tried that thing Bionic Reading it could be interesting for people to just digest the text further and quicker if that is the end goal but anyway its interesting I really do like it to be honest
unosama 3y ago
Irony has gone too far when you're writing an article explaining how your ironically bad and retro web design is good, actually.
- computerfriend 3y ago
  Not far enough.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  I'm not sure. It's only a problem if they expect anybody to actually read it.
cush 3y ago
Reminds me of Dinos Tomato Pie: https://www.dinostomatopie.com/ https://www.dinostomatopie.com/
efields 3y ago
This is good website.
MavisBacon 3y ago
Per original link >>Arghhhh! Your pages give me a headache, and/or eyestrain. >Stop using the site immediately and consult a qualified ophthalmologist. Seriously, no static display on a modern and correctly adjusted VDU such as a computer monitor or phone screen should ever be inducing headaches or eyestrain in a healthy individual when properly used for reasonable time periods, and with sufficient breaks. If it is, you may have an underlying health condition which has otherwise gone un-noticed. this statement basically implies that you have no intention of creating a website that is accessible to all users, and to all of those users with cognitive, vision, or neurological issues: "tough luck, go see a doctor!". Though I understand the goal here in terms of style and this page is indeed WCAG friendly enough in terms of some of the most obvious success criteria- this website is an objective nightmare for those with a variety of cognitive disabilities.
- falcolas 3y ago
  I have to admit, there's a lot of crap on this page. But... They do provide reasonable contrasts for all text on the page. The text is a reasonable size. Which is honestly better than most websites, especially technology sites. That said, it would be nice if they supported readers though, or directly linked to their "gem text" (pure ascii) site. Putting blame on the browsers for the site's design choices is lazy.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jrm4 3y ago
  I find it wildly ridiculous that we've more or less abandoned the practically simple idea of "the web is text, so just let people render the text how they want in their browsers." Yet another reminder of the overblown nature of UX/UI in general. Given the current push for accessibility, seems like "make the text accessible" should be the goal above all else.
  - tedunangst 3y ago
    But the text is all there? Is there some sort of DRM embedded in the html that prevents you from rendering it how you'd like?
rpgbr 3y ago
Nice explaining, yet terrible web design.
Daub 3y ago
Has anyone here seen the original ooer subreddit? https://old.reddit.com/r/Ooer/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Ooer/ best viewed on desktop Enjoy it's luscious overdrive.
QuadrupleA 3y ago
I think it's cool! I applaud them trying something different. There's too much groupthink and too little creativity / humanity in modern design - 90s mainstream UIs, for all their faults, at least had a little fun and soul.
- doublerabbit 3y ago
  Reminds me of Every Bootstrap Website Ever, https://www.dagusa.com/ https://www.dagusa.com/
captainpiggies 3y ago
Ok, we get it, your website's design is basically bad on purpose, and it probably generates a lot of free pr exactly because it is bad and because it's novel. However, I can assure you that my eyes are perfectly fine, but your website still makes me nauseous.
than3 3y ago
If the site text is not easily readable by anyone, you are doing something wrong. This is like saying, we want to make our site progressive, so we'll embed a bunch of things in a magic eye, and the people reading can do free-viewing for that steroscopic effect. Nevermind the simple fact that roughly 10% of the global population is color blind and as a result will biologically never be able to see it if the colors are wrong.
iudqnolq 3y ago
It's disgusting for them to say their site should be fine for a healthy individual and that's enough. Not everyone is healthy! And if you're unhealthy and visit a doctor you often won't be instantly cured. > Since admitting that you didn't realise the theme selector was there would make you look silly in front of people you don't even know The theme selector is a link in the footer. It's probably the most subtle thing on the entire page. And it's not like they're using the rest of their real estate efficiently. I think it's fair to infer they prefer people don't realize they can change the theme until they've been annoyed.
- 3np 3y ago
  From the top of the front page, the first section leads to half a screenful informing you to choose a theme. It's the first and most prominent showed to new visitors, promoted on top of the front page.
  - iudqnolq 3y ago
    if I control-f for "theme" the first hit is four screenfulls down (phone) and it's a reference in the middle of a long block of text that implies they have themes. The first prominent mention of themes is a heading six screenfulls down that mocks you for not changing it. It doesn't tell you how to change it. This site is an explosion of emphasis. They can use massive size and gradients and flashy colors to emphasize their mockery of me. If they choose not to use the same for their theme switcher link I think it's fair to infer they don't want to emphasize it.
ripley12 3y ago
Good for them. It’s a fun website design and a breath of fresh air. People who complain about offbeat-but-still-readable web design are killjoys who indirectly contribute to the sterility of the modern internet.
phforms 3y ago
The only thing that really annoys me about this website is the fixed vibrant background images that interfere with the text. Otherwise, I find it quite refreshing to see something different. I have seen much worse typography on “professional looking” websites tbh. However, it is not the most accessible of websites and I certainly wouldn’t want to have e.g. Wikipedia be designed like this (oof), but I don’t mind the occassional quirky rebellious web design adventure.
punyearthling 3y ago
I say this as an accessibility specialist - I think this site is fine. The authors have made a site that brings them joy and if they see customers dropping off and are fine with it, that’s OK. For folks complaining of headaches or eye strain, browsers come equipped with forced-colors mode that enable you to choose your preferred color scheme.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

282 points by nhanb 3y ago

have_faith 3y ago

The only thing the design needs is a max width on the paragraphs for large screens.

blowski 3y ago
I suspect they would reply with "resize your browser window".
- kevincox 3y ago
  This is shockingly common but do these people resize their window for every site they visit? Or they keep the window narrow and then sites with side navigation need to put it somewhere else? Having a large window should be telling the site "you have this space, make the best of it". Maybe it would be nice to have a built-in CSS property for "desired reading text width" but I think most people can pick a number and it is generally good for most readers.
  - blowski 3y ago
    I don't resize for every window, but I'm also not bothered about having to resize it if and when it makes sense. It takes longer type in a domain name, so it's hardly a big deal.
  - camgunz 3y ago
    I'm one of those non-fullscreen browser (and most things in general, other than vim) window people. > Having a large window should be telling the site "you have this space, make the best of it" I 100% agree but I interpret this in reverse: if I made my browser window gigantic I expect you to use it. If I make my browser window small I expect you to responsively shrink. The reason this doesn't happen is that it's pretty hard to build layouts that work across all these different screen sizes. That's generally why you get mobile/tablet/1600x900 desktop layouts and that's it. --- I suspect this is another consequence of the app vs. text tension on the web. Apps are great to fullscreen: you want Spotify or Figma to take up the whole window. You don't want a single sentence to unfurl entirely horizontally. But there's no way to say, "I'm the kind of user who sets the browser window size to as much as you can use, so use it all" or "I'm the kind of user who wants you to center your text elements and take up at most 1600px of space even when my browser window is using 3800px."
    - TylerE 3y ago
      Well, you could do something smart with CSS columns, but nobody does that.
  - philistine 3y ago
    Are you perhaps a Windows user accustomed to maximized windows only?
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > This is shockingly common but do these people resize their window for every site they visit? I don't. I never use my browser full-screen, but I do size it in whatever way makes it work with whatever else I have going on on my desktop. Usually, this is a very small window. If that makes a site unusable, and if the site isn't essential, then I just move on to a different site. I'm not going to rearrange things just to accommodate the whims of some random web designer.

jpswade 3y ago

Comes across as awfully defensive... Is this a satire website? I can't tell.

hgsgm 3y ago
They are earnest trolls. They appear to be freelance contracting consultants, for people who need temporary work to solve a software problem. They don't care about being approachable or having a readable website. They do care about looking like smart edgy programmers, presumably because they only want to be hired by people who like smart edgy programmers. But I couldn't find how to hire them, so the whole thing may just be a goof for one person's personal hobby tech blog.

j-bos 3y ago

I really like the site and the qa thread. A criticism: The site/theme info footer is off center to the right on Samsung Galaxy browsers (ff, chrome, etc), hiding half the footer text.

FridgeSeal 3y ago

Honestly the design is a breath of fresh (tropical) air. And the scrolling is sooo smooth.

rolph 3y ago

in many cases, i turn off the page style. this is one of them. if i really feel i need the info and de-styling wont work, then i read the source. if to no avail, i go elsewhere.

JohnFen 3y ago
> i read the source. You mean I'm not the only one who does this?? I think I end up doing that on about 25% of the websites I hit.

dagorenouf 3y ago

The contrarian approach generates free marketing and serves as a filter to pain-in-the-ass clients who will nitpick about everything. Well played.

JohnFen 3y ago

Wow, the people running that website are pissed.

rektide 3y ago
The whole website is playful as fuck. This 100% felt like more playful teasing. At the expense of those who refuse to have a good time, who can't roll with it, who let themselves be tattered by tiny things. It just going on and on and on just keeps highlighting how in depth & considerate & thoughtful they really are & keeps bringing out the joke more, about how hilarious & fun it is & how great it is to have such an amusing conversation piece. This page is their moment of glory, a secret shrine to how awesome they are. The hurf-burf "this isn't 90's web design!" being way over precise & technical about the matter was a hilarious example of them just being here to have fun & be smart about shit.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  I guess that's the problem with extreme snark. It's very culturally dependent and doesn't always translate well when taken out of the social setting that it grew in. That page doesn't read to me as playful or fun, it reads to me as angry and bitter. Although I understand (now) that's not what they were going for, I can't make my brain read it any other way.
  - rektide 3y ago
    The whole experience drives a huge wedge into folks, as we see from the very strong breakdown of very negative vs very positive. The site's whole premise comes at the expense of severely agitating some people. Doubling down seems like the obvious move. I don't there's a real possibility of useful dialog or outreach with the discontent; making oveure's to a non-addressable market just doesn't make sense. And it's not like they have particularly bad points either. They're over the top but basically counter-roasting far more over the top griping, for the most part. It's all pretty well constructed. I don't think they cause any additional or excess damage with this. I don't always think shiboleths or in-comments are wise, but here in particular I think it adds greatly. It's almost entirely just people's disposition & response we see for how folks perceive this, and not at all cultural or information based. The context in question is mostly the reader themselves. This continues to parlay the grand-joke about emotions & people well, to me.

nhanb 3y ago

I've always liked ExoticSilicon's design, but not until this post did I realize their smart bit of CSS for default font size: font-size: min(max(1em, 1.3vw), 1.3em); Which explains why it looks just right on my high-DPI Chromebook even though I haven't configured a big enough default font size for the browser. This is going to be the default font-size for all of my websites now (preceded by a fallback for maximum compatibility of course).

LanternLight83 3y ago
I've always loved the site too c:
notRobot 3y ago
Here's an explanation of this expression from Phind: https://www.phind.com/search?cache=bd161914-4d18-4758-b540-246f42d79a4a https://www.phind.com/search?cache=bd161914-4d18-4758-b540-2...
- andy_ppp 3y ago
  Make the font scale from a minimum of 1em to 1.3% of the screen width with a maximum width of 1.3em?
- hgsgm 3y ago
  Amazing how many words is uses to say nothing. The only mysterious parts of the expression are how the em and wv units work.
eajakobsen 3y ago
If you want it to be even more readable you could do the following: font-size: clamp(1em, 1.3vw, 1.3em); I would also consider using `rem` instead of `em` incase you want to use it anywhere other than the root element.
- nhanb 3y ago
  I would only use this kind of thing on the root element, then size all other elements relative to the root element e.g. h1 { font-size: 1.5rem; }. It's more manageable that way IMHO. Thanks for the tip on clamp() by the way, TIL.

petercooper 3y ago

That's it, I've completed the Internet. This is my new favorite page. The aesthete in me may bristle, but the pragmatist agrees. There are many ergonomic and UX concerns to consider when designing things, but I think they make their case very well and I didn't find it a problem to read at all.

pas 3y ago
the background distracts too much, but otherwise it's pretty readable.
- bombcar 3y ago
  There are various themes and it works well on mobile and doesn’t look like every single other website out there today, so I count it as a win. It’s kind of how so many LaTeX documents look the same because nobody bothers to design anything; the inverse problem from Word where things are too easy to change.
  - doodlesdev 3y ago
    > It’s kind of how so many LaTeX documents look the same because nobody bothers to design anything I see that as a feature honestly.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      Oh, it certainly is, but the further you drift from "scientific report/research paper" the worse the defaults get.

sethammons 3y ago

> my designs draw from styles and concepts typical of 8-bit computer magazines in the late 1980s and early 1990s I think they channel the feeling quite well

tpowell 3y ago

If you enjoy a bit of well-done nostalgia, I suggest giving vacation.inc [1] a try, too (same guys from poolsuite.net [2]). [1] https://www.vacation.inc https://www.vacation.inc [2] https://poolsuite.net https://poolsuite.net

spatulon 3y ago
Is that Apple Garamond?
pell 3y ago
Big fan of Poolsuite! Another one is here: https://www.vistaserv.net/ https://www.vistaserv.net/ The font rendering is especially impressive to me. You can read more about it here: https://www.vistaserv.net/blog/90s-fonts-modern-browsers https://www.vistaserv.net/blog/90s-fonts-modern-browsers

kyleyeats 3y ago

I love the indignation over being accused of 90s web design when they are actually in fact inspired by 90s print design.

kloch 3y ago
Yes. Their design reminds me of WIRED magazine from the 1990's, not at all like web pages from the 1990's.

8ig8 3y ago

> You agree not to use the content to train AI systems or machine learning systems. https://research.exoticsilicon.com/terms https://research.exoticsilicon.com/terms First I’ve seen that.

capableweb 3y ago
Seems unlikely to be enforceable as "overly expansive", as someone could surely argue our brains are just AI and/or ML but in organic form. Does that mean I'm not allowed to learn from the website?
- weird-eye-issue 3y ago
  Are you aware of what the "A" in AI and the "M" in ML stand for?
  - capableweb 3y ago
    No, I work in a field without having zero idea what the most basic terminology actually means. Are you aware what "organic" means? Have some imagination. We can call it OI and OL to make it a bit easier if you want.
    - hgsgm 3y ago
      Did you know that different words have different meanings?
    - weird-eye-issue 3y ago
      If you called something OI and OL then you wouldn't be referring to AI and ML. They would be different things. It's clearly big brain time for you...
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      > Are you aware what "organic" means? I am, but I always get an argument when I tell certain people that "all food is organic", despite the fact that's technically correct.

h2odragon 3y ago

Their "80s theme" should be more widely used

pmontra 3y ago

Well, the current trend of gradients in text colors (usually purple to blue) is something we were told not to do in the 90s, because it would make our sites look like cheap videogames from the 80s. We would be doing it with GIFs. However inventing something new is really difficult especially after the space of the ideas had been explored for a long time. As for fashion, once you exhausted all the variations of the current fad you have to start again with an old one, with a twist. The result is that all those new web sites look old to me. Exoticsilicon looks really old.

AstixAndBelix 3y ago

>progressive nothing progressive about this design. just call yourself peculiar instead of giving this veneer of betterment

gryfft 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_web_app https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_web_app
paulcole 3y ago
> just call yourself peculiar instead of giving this veneer of betterment A leader in the clubhouse for the Accidental HN Slogan of the Year award.
Veen 3y ago
The widespread adoption of this credo would improve modern life immeasurably.

unsupp0rted 3y ago

> If you insist on trying to use ‘reader’ mode to view our webpages, then you are simply creating your own problems.

xyproto 3y ago

I think this is AI generated, because of obvious mistakes like listing elements of 90's web design which includes "sans-serif" and then in the next paragraph insisting that no 90's web design elements are used, while all the headers uses a sans-serif font.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
danuker 3y ago
You'd probably get a reply that sans-serif fonts were invented in ancient Greece.
nhanb 3y ago
You misread. They said the opposite: > Websites in the, (late), 1990s were characterised by many things, but a typical list might include: > - Serif fonts

KronisLV 3y ago

Tried out all of their themes on the welcome page, which seems like a nice showcase of what's available when you switch the themes: https://research.exoticsilicon.com/welcome https://research.exoticsilicon.com/welcome Here's the aspects that I personally enjoyed: - Tropical nights: this feels like a pleasant theme on the eyes, almost like an IDE dark mode - Nitrate memories: another theme that feels fairly readable, with the contrast being okay in *most* places - Light pastels: this one dials down the colors a little bit so they're not as distracting That said, when most of the web looks more or less the same way, it feels like this site stands out too much and the design detracts from the experience, in my eyes. For example, opening the page linked in this post, you're confronted with colorful shadows, titles (the questions) in a serif font that's not as bold as the answers that come in a sans serif font, a static background for when you scroll the content that's an image that you can't quite read. I'd probably just have a chuckle about the quirky design and go browse other sites that might have the information that I'm looking for, due to my eyes scanning them more quickly and easily, much like you'd look at data in a spreadsheet (sans annoying pop-ups and other dark patterns that web is plagued with). But you know what? Their website design is none of my business, it's fine for them to make their own choices and run it how they desire, even if some of the answers on this particular page are a bit on the nose. Can't say whether we'd benefit from more or less of that, in general, though.

JohnFen 3y ago
> That said, when most of the web looks more or less the same way, it feels like this site stands out too much and the design detracts from the experience, in my eyes. The site's design is not to my taste -- but I seriously love that it doesn't look like almost all of the rest of the web. Most of the web all looks the same. I applaud Exotic Silicon for pushing back against that.
rektide 3y ago
I really really miss the multi-skinned website thing. Having multiple personalities for your site was such just a rip roaring cool thing. That whole idea of a site being an experience has gotten simmered away. In many cases that reduction of friction is due & appreciated, but there's something to be said for having a bit of an experience too, even if it is a kind of shallow/transactional bit. My first webshack internship had a nice website with like 20+ very slick early web designs folks could switch between. So cool. There's the Css Zen Garden, a set of html elements to practice your design chops on. That was so the spirit of web design, highlighted so powerfully how bodaciously rad having html structured information & css styling as separate entities was, rather than as almost all UI toolkit do having the two concerns more intermingled. Zen Garden Forever. https://www.csszengarden.com/ https://www.csszengarden.com/

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

renewiltord 3y ago

Haha, this is great. Present as you will. Don't enslave yourselves to the refinement culture horde. It's okay.

activitypea 3y ago

They want the Cruelty Squad audience

zagrebian 3y ago

> Stop using the site immediately and consult a qualified ophthalmologist. Seriously, no static display on a modern and correctly adjusted VDU such as a computer monitor or phone screen should ever be inducing headaches or eyestrain in a healthy individual when properly used for reasonable time periods, and with sufficient breaks. If it is, you may have an underlying health condition which has otherwise gone un-noticed. So they’re saying that they’re aware that their website is inaccessible to some people with certain health conditions, and they don’t intend to do anything about it. That’s like if a grocery store with a staircase at the front door put up a sign that says, “If you have trouble climbing these stairs, consult your doctor. No person with healthy legs should have trouble climbing these stairs. You may have a health condition.” I mean, thanks for the advice, but you’re still excluding people.

pmelendez 3y ago
The tone of the website has a very tongue-in-cheek tone to me. Taking it seriously is like doing journalism research using The Onion.
- zagrebian 3y ago
  How does a person who can’t read the text because of their health issues know that it’s tongue in cheek?
  - blowski 3y ago
    Should the vast majority of the world who do not have those health issues be deprived of its glory, because there is a minority who - very sadly and unfortunately for them - cannot look at it? Should Picasso not have bothered painting since some people are blind? Should Tolstoy not have written War and Peace because some people do not have the reading level to cope with such a complex book? Should Maria Callas not have sung so beautifully because the deaf would never be able to hear her? If you are there for the content and not the design, then it works fine with a browser like Lynx. Thus all the content is entirely accessible.

nathias 3y ago

very cool, I like it

the_common_man 3y ago

Glorious website, please don't change

ezconnect 3y ago

My online gripe is I can't use reader view.

eitland 3y ago

Bookmarked for inspiration. This was seriously refreshing even if I hope most corporate websites won't copy it. Not everything needs to be hard and not everything needs to be dull.

rwky 3y ago

The 80s theme is my favourite, IMHO the easiest to read (and looks like my terminal)

Waterluvian 3y ago

It is the year 2031 and every website that didn’t adhere to modern design “sensibilities” has been hunted down and summarily executed… …well, almost every. Exotic Silicon is still at large, last seen in the vicinity of the 46 block.

fatih-erikli 3y ago

I like how the bird levitates towards banner in homepage

vrglvrglvrgl 3y ago

[dead]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

HopenHeyHi 3y ago

[flagged]

midenginedcoupe 3y ago

Reminds me of Lings Cars: https://www.lingscars.com/ https://www.lingscars.com/ Not a niche or hobbyist website, but a genuine car leasing company. Who's owner deliberately styled the site like this to act as a differentiator in a crowded market. It's certainly unique, I'll give them that.

ricardobayes 3y ago
Wow that average time to respond timer is nice, wish more sites did that.
- kjs3 3y ago
  I would lease a car from that man.
  - Nekobai 3y ago
    Woman ;)
prmoustache 3y ago
That website is just perfect.
xeetzer 3y ago
This one is actually great though.
awb 3y ago
> You can trust me… I am Ling! Hope you enjoying your visit to LINGsCARS.com Sometimes marketing is so bad it’s good
rchaud 3y ago
What's most shocking about this site is that they added a mobile layout in 2022. Before it was desktop-only.

asddubs 3y ago

I think the one thing that strains the eyes a bit about the layout (besides people just using it as a metaphor for saying they don't like it) is that a lot of their themes use text shadow on all of the text, which makes it look slightly blurry, which in turn makes your eyes strain trying to focus on it.

davidmurdoch 3y ago
They address this and tell you your browser is broken. But also that if you are using a non-broken browser and it's still hard to read for you then that's on purpose, they want it to be hard to read for you, because their content is for healthy people only.
- asddubs 3y ago
  they don't actually go into any detail how it's supposed to render, though. they refer to the standard but don't actually say what the browsers are supposedly doing wrong. It's not that the shadow being applied makes the text blurry somehow, it's that the shadow itself makes the text look like it's blurry, because it's very subtle. So, I don't buy it.

lukefore 3y ago

Hacker News should hire them for a refresh.

pflanze 3y ago

This site eats about 50% CPU on Firefox (on an older laptop) for every page that is open at the same time, and it continues to eat 50% after closing all pages. It doesn't use JavaScript and no visible CSS animations, so what is it? Apparently, the favicon! Which, as explained on the linked page, "is SVG, (with S.M.I.L. animation)". Since the favicon is still listed on the list of favourites on the browser start page, it continues to eat CPU... until clearing the browser history.

twawaaay 3y ago
"Ask Firefox developers"
prmoustache 3y ago
- On edge on linux (yes) cpu process usage increase as well, but not as much. - On chromium cpu usage do not evolve but it is not animating the favicon. If you want to disable it on firefox and are using ublock origin, you can do so by going to the ublock origin dashboard --> My Filters and add the following line: ||research.exoticsilicon.com/images/icon.svg
whalesalad 3y ago
you just need a bigger cpu, so that the site uses less.
schnable 3y ago
Ask the Firefox team this question!!!!!!!
unosama 3y ago
Another perk of staying on Firefox 83.0, the favicon doesn't even load!

hankmander 3y ago

Beautiful! Finally somebody taking the best of old and new and the result is something different!

catapart 3y ago

Design proof that being "unique" doesn't mean "good". I'm certainly glad they like what they've built. But it breaks a lot of design concepts that help with UX (some in micro ways that aren't really noticeable without the aggregate effect). The "max character width" is a really valuable thing for "readability". But why bother with learning design when you're using all of the TECHNICAL specs 'exactly as specified'. Why bother with design responsibility when you're already absolving yourself of technical responsibility ('it should not be our job to work around bad tech...'). Of course, the most galling thing is that they're not actually using the spec, as it is specified. Using `section` tags everywhere is inappropriate. They are meant to break up content in the `article` tag. But, okay, whatever; you're going to cling to the spec but still ignore the parts of it you don't like. Fine. Like they said, it's not causing screen-reader issues, so who cares, right? Except that they ALSO don't use the `header` tag within those sections to denote what is clearly a header. Not a "heading" (h1-6, used for breaking up paragraphs in articles), maybe, since it's not in an article and that can cause funky screen-reader performance, but there's no reason to NOT use a `header` tag. This use case is literally what it was made for; giving a generic header that you can style and make accessible on your own. So why use a `section` tag erroneously, but then eschew using the `header` tag for the exact purpose you need? (why use it? screen readers/accessibility) Nothing in this seems like "well-considered design". Rather it seems like "good enough, and how I like it." Which is a perfectly wonderful way to design and run a website! It's just kind of shitty to then go write an entire article telling anyone who misunderstands your uniqueness for a different flavor of uniqueness that you are actually doing everything exactly right and that anyone who dislikes your site should take their "problems" elsewhere. A fine enough attitude, if you're in to that kind of gatekeeping, but I've never found it compelling or endearing.

msoad 3y ago
Let me out-snob you and say those are called elements not tags.
- catapart 3y ago
  I don't know what I said that was snobby? I replied to their article based on the points they made in said article. That aside, yes, I was wrong to use it like "[...] in the `article` tag."; well spotted.

ryandrake 3y ago

Call me old fashioned, but web sites that overdo the CSS and assert a strong design opinion just kind of annoy me now. I wish we could go back to a WWW where the browser was the user agent and the user was the authority on text size, font face, colors and so on. Browsers have devolved from applications allowing users to browse hyperTEXT into these free-for-all canvases for web designers’ creativity. Technically this should be solvable by using the browser’s “no styles” feature, but many web sites seem to be careless with the structure of their HTML such that “no styles” isn’t even readable. I know this ship has sailed and my opinion is a fart in the wind at this point, but the web could have turned into a nice, fast, consistent way to publish structured and linked TEXT, but instead we got this “Remote Photoshop for Web Designers.”

manuelmoreale 3y ago
I'd argue there's a good middle ground to be found between the two extremes. We should style without overstyle.
prmoustache 3y ago
> I wish we could go back to a WWW where the browser was the user agent and the user was the authority on text size, font face, colors and so on. This is still the case. Your browser allows you to choose which font and size you want to use, as well as editing the css loaded on a tab and most browsers have extensions available to automatically load the css of your choice for a particular site. The fact is that you choose not to use that freedom.
cush 3y ago
Another wonderful internet fart in the wind is bidirectional links https://maggieappleton.com/bidirectionals https://maggieappleton.com/bidirectionals

grokkedit 3y ago

does anyone know what's the string above the "NO CARRIER" written at the bottom of the page?

koromak 3y ago
Wondering that too. Its not an obvious encoding to my eyes.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  You're too young to understand. :)
mikecoles 3y ago
Mom picking up the phone and dialing Aunt Madge?
pwg 3y ago
Kind of looks like an attempt at simulating the "modem dropped because someone picked up an extension phone while modem was connected" result. There was often a burst of random characters like that when the link went down due to "external causes".

gbromios 3y ago

I deeply, un-ironically respect their ethos and their hideous, distracting color scheme

rsync 3y ago
Agreed. I have no idea who "exoticsilicon" are or if they read HN but if they do, free-for-life rsync.net accounts for any of them that care to contact us. I am already making good use of this particular piece of content: https://research.exoticsilicon.com/articles/lte_ethernet_bridge https://research.exoticsilicon.com/articles/lte_ethernet_bri...

layer8 3y ago

The one thing I would change, which only the 1980s theme fixes, at the cost of monospace text, is to make the background non-scrolling (or, rather, non-fixed).

frankfrankfrank 3y ago

Can’t really argue with most of their logic. The site is fast and responsive. I did get a sense that most if the criticism is really based on anxiety about the authors own position, i.e., a buzzword internet startup type is of course going to feel panic if it is highlighted that their fancy designs and site that is heavily reliant on violating people’s privacy and security bogs down the site and the whole internet with it. It’s typical crabs in a barrel nitpicking. And yes, I realize I just upset many sensibilities here.

nkrisc 3y ago

Couldn't actually read for very long. The content scrolling over the static background image gave me motion sickness. The 1980s theme was the only one I could stand, and the 1990s theme appears to be the same as the Tropical Days theme. All the ones with the background are essentially unusable for me. It's their site, they can do whatever they want, but it's a bit silly to act like there's something wrong with anyone who has a problem with it. For example, in the default theme the yellow text (#FFFF00) with the pink highlight (#FF00FF) fails WCAG contrast requirements across the board. Maybe the really don't care whether everyone has an easy time reading their site or not, and that's their choice, but I find the snark about it off-putting. It's not difficult to design a site that's easy for everyone to read. > But anyway, most of the material published on our research website is also available in gemtext format via our gemini server. Might be the only way I'd read this site.

hairofadog 3y ago
> I find the snark about it off-putting Same. I think this is one of those things where they were having some fun, and then some people on the Internet overreacted with great hyperbole, and so they're issuing this response to those people, but I'm sitting here reading it and it feels aggressive, and I think, "Wait, what did I do? I'm just sitting here not bothering anybody", and it begins to feel like a low-level conflict. I think a lot of internet discourse is like that, unfortunately.
- jallen_dot_dev 3y ago
  Probably trying to copy the "cool"/snarky PR approach of dbrand[1] or Ryanair[2]. [1] https://twitter.com/dbrand/status/1626716812128952320 https://twitter.com/dbrand/status/1626716812128952320 [2] https://twitter.com/Ryanair/status/1569268623235231748 https://twitter.com/Ryanair/status/1569268623235231748
catapart 3y ago
Aye. Big "we have a developer that knows CSS" vibes, rather than "we have a designer" energy. Feels like someone should have told them the pitfalls of chasing a design that was hand-crafted for a specific format (print media; magazines, specifically), or at least why the choices that were made for that medium were made, and why they may cause issues in this medium. For that kind of stuff, though, you need someone who has a deep knowledge of design, rather than just a high skill at implementing designs. Of course, with such an obviously high skill at design implementation, they did plenty enough to be perfectly fine for most use-cases, so it's hard to be too hard on them about any of their choices. Everything works just fine. And to ignore complaints that ignore your design choices is a fine disposition, as well! No reason to bother with people who aren't interested in your vision and don't contribute. But to snark about the complaints, as if there's nothing you could do better? Smacks of an aloofness that is an off-putting characteristic for an organizations purporting to do research.

jamesandthewolf 3y ago

Ha I actually kind of like this design its a bit different but works, I think the only thing that I might say is the reading length is a bit long maybe limiting to a set width in terms of length as its difficult on large screens to read across the full page but other then this not bad. Have you tried that thing Bionic Reading it could be interesting for people to just digest the text further and quicker if that is the end goal but anyway its interesting I really do like it to be honest

unosama 3y ago

Irony has gone too far when you're writing an article explaining how your ironically bad and retro web design is good, actually.

computerfriend 3y ago
Not far enough.
marcosdumay 3y ago
I'm not sure. It's only a problem if they expect anybody to actually read it.

cush 3y ago

Reminds me of Dinos Tomato Pie: https://www.dinostomatopie.com/ https://www.dinostomatopie.com/

efields 3y ago

This is good website.

MavisBacon 3y ago

Per original link >>Arghhhh! Your pages give me a headache, and/or eyestrain. >Stop using the site immediately and consult a qualified ophthalmologist. Seriously, no static display on a modern and correctly adjusted VDU such as a computer monitor or phone screen should ever be inducing headaches or eyestrain in a healthy individual when properly used for reasonable time periods, and with sufficient breaks. If it is, you may have an underlying health condition which has otherwise gone un-noticed. this statement basically implies that you have no intention of creating a website that is accessible to all users, and to all of those users with cognitive, vision, or neurological issues: "tough luck, go see a doctor!". Though I understand the goal here in terms of style and this page is indeed WCAG friendly enough in terms of some of the most obvious success criteria- this website is an objective nightmare for those with a variety of cognitive disabilities.

falcolas 3y ago
I have to admit, there's a lot of crap on this page. But... They do provide reasonable contrasts for all text on the page. The text is a reasonable size. Which is honestly better than most websites, especially technology sites. That said, it would be nice if they supported readers though, or directly linked to their "gem text" (pure ascii) site. Putting blame on the browsers for the site's design choices is lazy.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jrm4 3y ago
I find it wildly ridiculous that we've more or less abandoned the practically simple idea of "the web is text, so just let people render the text how they want in their browsers." Yet another reminder of the overblown nature of UX/UI in general. Given the current push for accessibility, seems like "make the text accessible" should be the goal above all else.
- tedunangst 3y ago
  But the text is all there? Is there some sort of DRM embedded in the html that prevents you from rendering it how you'd like?

rpgbr 3y ago

Nice explaining, yet terrible web design.

Daub 3y ago

Has anyone here seen the original ooer subreddit? https://old.reddit.com/r/Ooer/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Ooer/ best viewed on desktop Enjoy it's luscious overdrive.

QuadrupleA 3y ago

I think it's cool! I applaud them trying something different. There's too much groupthink and too little creativity / humanity in modern design - 90s mainstream UIs, for all their faults, at least had a little fun and soul.

doublerabbit 3y ago
Reminds me of Every Bootstrap Website Ever, https://www.dagusa.com/ https://www.dagusa.com/

captainpiggies 3y ago

Ok, we get it, your website's design is basically bad on purpose, and it probably generates a lot of free pr exactly because it is bad and because it's novel. However, I can assure you that my eyes are perfectly fine, but your website still makes me nauseous.

than3 3y ago

If the site text is not easily readable by anyone, you are doing something wrong. This is like saying, we want to make our site progressive, so we'll embed a bunch of things in a magic eye, and the people reading can do free-viewing for that steroscopic effect. Nevermind the simple fact that roughly 10% of the global population is color blind and as a result will biologically never be able to see it if the colors are wrong.

iudqnolq 3y ago

It's disgusting for them to say their site should be fine for a healthy individual and that's enough. Not everyone is healthy! And if you're unhealthy and visit a doctor you often won't be instantly cured. > Since admitting that you didn't realise the theme selector was there would make you look silly in front of people you don't even know The theme selector is a link in the footer. It's probably the most subtle thing on the entire page. And it's not like they're using the rest of their real estate efficiently. I think it's fair to infer they prefer people don't realize they can change the theme until they've been annoyed.

3np 3y ago
From the top of the front page, the first section leads to half a screenful informing you to choose a theme. It's the first and most prominent showed to new visitors, promoted on top of the front page.
- iudqnolq 3y ago
  if I control-f for "theme" the first hit is four screenfulls down (phone) and it's a reference in the middle of a long block of text that implies they have themes. The first prominent mention of themes is a heading six screenfulls down that mocks you for not changing it. It doesn't tell you how to change it. This site is an explosion of emphasis. They can use massive size and gradients and flashy colors to emphasize their mockery of me. If they choose not to use the same for their theme switcher link I think it's fair to infer they don't want to emphasize it.

ripley12 3y ago

Good for them. It’s a fun website design and a breath of fresh air. People who complain about offbeat-but-still-readable web design are killjoys who indirectly contribute to the sterility of the modern internet.

phforms 3y ago

The only thing that really annoys me about this website is the fixed vibrant background images that interfere with the text. Otherwise, I find it quite refreshing to see something different. I have seen much worse typography on “professional looking” websites tbh. However, it is not the most accessible of websites and I certainly wouldn’t want to have e.g. Wikipedia be designed like this (oof), but I don’t mind the occassional quirky rebellious web design adventure.

punyearthling 3y ago

I say this as an accessibility specialist - I think this site is fine. The authors have made a site that brings them joy and if they see customers dropping off and are fine with it, that’s OK. For folks complaining of headaches or eye strain, browsers come equipped with forced-colors mode that enable you to choose your preferred color scheme.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]