Comment by bikamonki | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bikamonki | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

If borrowing the term from Architecture, then a brutalist website should be one that (only) uses the 'raw' (original) elements of design and functionality (cannot separate both in web design), namely: page layout + font face + color palette for the graphic design component, and links + media for the functional (hypermedia) component. As such, I do not see how modernizing the style through functional paradigms, like a flat design UI, breaks the original canon. However, we could argue that anything else, like flashy add-ons such as element transitions, drop-downs, fades, etc, do break the canon and are just a response to trends, just like a bunch of useless zippers and pockets do not add functional value to a trendy jacket but definitely help sell it.

Efficient use of resources and fast loading is a entire different subject. Enter the engineer, leave the architect. It is absolutely possible to program any design paradigm to perform fast and efficiently.

I wonder what the website equivalent of concrete is.

"There is often an emphasis on graphically expressing in the external elevations and in the whole-site architectural plan the main functions and people-flows of the buildings."

This might suggest ways to express navigation that are explicit and not hidden

We already had the website equivalent of béton brut in the formative stages of the web. Just about all websites were the correct color.

https://www.google.com/search?q=mosaic+browser&safe=off&rlz=...

Another thing I thought of was using the <table> tag for layout.

It's austere, as well as an anti-pattern when used exclusively. Despite this, it just plain gets the job done. It has also proven quite sturdy/reliable, even on popular sites like this one.

One of the things I kind of miss about the table based layouts of yesteryear was it seemed to be a lot easier to make sites that looked good in terminal/text based web browsers. The modern idea of doing all of your actual layout in CSS doesn't degrade as well for text based browsers.

Here's a challenge for you frontend hackers out there: show me a now standard <ul> based horizontal nav-bar... that also renders horizontally in w3m and lynx.

Why does it have to render horizontally? I think the goal is that the text-based layout is just a simple outline, and CSS is used to get a spatial layout. It sounds like you want a little of both worlds. You're right tables can be hacked to do that, but you're going against the grain of the technology, and I'd ask what you hope to gain?

I think many "frontend hackers" spend their time focused on what can be done and not enough on what should be done. This is a side-effect of our hyperspecialization culture which discourages designers and developers pushing back on each other, out of fear of stepping on each others' expertise. But I think that fear prevents the kind of real collaboration that's required to make a great UI.

I've always felt a little uncomfortable using <ul> for a horizontal nav bar (although I'm aware that is a common usage). <ul> is a block level element and so is not semantically correct for a horizontal set of elements.

> <ul> is a block level element

This just happens to be the default style. At its core, <ul> is an unordered list. Whether you happen to arrange the items horizontally, vertically, or any other way, is just presentation. Which is precisely why CSS is separate from HTML.

> it just plain gets the job done

Depends on the job.

I'm tempted to reply that a brutalist website would be one that keeps decoration to a minimum, but.....that wouldn't fit, because (for example) the Geisel Library has plenty of decoration, it's just in concrete and glass.

Maybe a brutalist HTML page would have the tags embedded, kind of like the WordPerfect codes.

A bit like the Hotmetal editor from 90s? :-) http://literacy.kent.edu/Midwest/Graphics/hotmetal.jpg

I think that exposing and styling some of the hidden elements - <script> or <noscript> or <meta> or <link> or whatever - would also be in keeping with the ethos. Unless that's what you meant and I'm just repeating you, I'm not sure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com