11 ms·

Serious answer: Bootstrap. That framework did more damage to web design than any other framework. Yeah, its nice that you can spin up a page in a second that

by smaudet 1mo ago

Serious answer: Bootstrap. That framework did more damage to web design than any other framework. Yeah, its nice that you can spin up a page in a second that looks like every other page on the internet, wait a minute... Technical answer: CSS It was a nice idea, and it sure beat hand-designing each and every page (wait a second, weren't/aren't we doing that all over again?). It did/does too much, and was mostly in lieu of a common repository of UI stuff, so people found One Way that it would work reasonably well on most browsers/devices, and so bootstrap was born...

dcminter 1mo ago
There's some alternate timeline where browsers kept competing on widgets and every website now looks like a native application. I don't know if it would be better or worse.
trueno 1mo ago
I was hanging around during the bootstrap era. It was fine, no i think theres some blend of where UI/UX/marketing that were way overblown that really blitzed all sites into looking the same. Every component framework or helper framework under the sun is barely doing anything different. Shadcn, daisyui, tailwind, all of that.. it's all customizable but people aren't interested in making something fresh and new using bootstrap/daisyui/shadcn/whatever, the components aren't the problem. Anyone could if they took the time and effort put together something pretty unique using any of these, but they don't. Outta the box yeah they are particularly bland (flat buttons and rounded everything literally sucks I'm so tired of it), but it's _what_ the page is and how it's arranged that is reeking with sameness / pointlessness / enshittification. And that abomination is... landing pages. These pages are fkn awful. Career UX/UI folks will defend them, and this just feels like they smoked too much of their own shenanigans. Every SaaS under the sun, hell half the things here that end up with some sort of VC backing... the first thing they do is spin up a nothingburger landing page that says a whole lot of jack diddly squat that all have a familiar feel where everything's centered, there's meaningless bulletpoints and info cards, but no real meat or information that describes what you're after... that feeling = "how do i beat gd level 1 (this landing page) so i can find what im looking for" and yeah. This has bled into documentation spaces as well, somehow rendering documentation (the thing that is supposed to help you get oriented) feel like you can't actually find what you're looking for. UX/UI in the past decade was blown way out of proportion and I can't help but feel like it's been shaped by way too many imperfect half theories / stupid market research and is way too heavily influenced by marketing and adspace to be taken seriously. In general there is certainly a taste for what makes a good UX and that to me is typically a blend of utility and looks-cool. But without any utility everything feels like a goddamn waste of time & I'm mostly assured that websites that sport pages like this have way too many financial strings attached driving their every move. They all try to drive you towards filling out a sales inquiry form. It's ironic and hilarious that a lot of times if I want to learn about some platform or product, the last place I can reliably go to is their own website. These days you just gotta go digging, ask claude to go collect a bunch of user feedback from around the net or something.
- smaudet 1mo ago
  > Career UX/UI folks will defend them, and this just feels like they smoked too much of their own shenanigans. Of course, people are a part of the problem, never said they weren't. But when you ask how did Bobby from marketing commit murder, it's pertinent if he used a crowbar or a glock. Sure, neither are "evil" on their own, and I'm not saying that bootstrap is bad. It's just the footgun that made it that much more likely... If you want a "why" for the human side of the equation, well I'm not a marketing guy, the TV show Mad Men seems to offer an interesting perspective as to what makes a marketing department "good", vs just another latte drinking "vibe" shop. My hypothesis being, I have a strong suspicion certain parts of that culture no longer exist, and have mostly been replaced with number-seeking.

by smaudet 1mo ago

dcminter 1mo ago

There's some alternate timeline where browsers kept competing on widgets and every website now looks like a native application. I don't know if it would be better or worse.

trueno 1mo ago

I was hanging around during the bootstrap era. It was fine, no i think theres some blend of where UI/UX/marketing that were way overblown that really blitzed all sites into looking the same. Every component framework or helper framework under the sun is barely doing anything different. Shadcn, daisyui, tailwind, all of that.. it's all customizable but people aren't interested in making something fresh and new using bootstrap/daisyui/shadcn/whatever, the components aren't the problem. Anyone could if they took the time and effort put together something pretty unique using any of these, but they don't. Outta the box yeah they are particularly bland (flat buttons and rounded everything literally sucks I'm so tired of it), but it's _what_ the page is and how it's arranged that is reeking with sameness / pointlessness / enshittification. And that abomination is... landing pages. These pages are fkn awful. Career UX/UI folks will defend them, and this just feels like they smoked too much of their own shenanigans. Every SaaS under the sun, hell half the things here that end up with some sort of VC backing... the first thing they do is spin up a nothingburger landing page that says a whole lot of jack diddly squat that all have a familiar feel where everything's centered, there's meaningless bulletpoints and info cards, but no real meat or information that describes what you're after... that feeling = "how do i beat gd level 1 (this landing page) so i can find what im looking for" and yeah. This has bled into documentation spaces as well, somehow rendering documentation (the thing that is supposed to help you get oriented) feel like you can't actually find what you're looking for. UX/UI in the past decade was blown way out of proportion and I can't help but feel like it's been shaped by way too many imperfect half theories / stupid market research and is way too heavily influenced by marketing and adspace to be taken seriously. In general there is certainly a taste for what makes a good UX and that to me is typically a blend of utility and looks-cool. But without any utility everything feels like a goddamn waste of time & I'm mostly assured that websites that sport pages like this have way too many financial strings attached driving their every move. They all try to drive you towards filling out a sales inquiry form. It's ironic and hilarious that a lot of times if I want to learn about some platform or product, the last place I can reliably go to is their own website. These days you just gotta go digging, ask claude to go collect a bunch of user feedback from around the net or something.

smaudet 1mo ago
> Career UX/UI folks will defend them, and this just feels like they smoked too much of their own shenanigans. Of course, people are a part of the problem, never said they weren't. But when you ask how did Bobby from marketing commit murder, it's pertinent if he used a crowbar or a glock. Sure, neither are "evil" on their own, and I'm not saying that bootstrap is bad. It's just the footgun that made it that much more likely... If you want a "why" for the human side of the equation, well I'm not a marketing guy, the TV show Mad Men seems to offer an interesting perspective as to what makes a marketing department "good", vs just another latte drinking "vibe" shop. My hypothesis being, I have a strong suspicion certain parts of that culture no longer exist, and have mostly been replaced with number-seeking.