Some of the colours seem to indicate badness. Clicking on things provides no additional information, but then makes me wonder if it's meant to be an example of a bad webpage and there's nothing wrong with my browser.
Another failure of minimalism.
It is indeed the site itself that intends to be "bad". The site intentionally serves SSL certificates that are invalid or bad in various ways. Each subdomain is bad in a different way. You can test your code against these domains to ensure your code rejects the invalid or bad certificate.
Think of it as expecting to see gas gauges and speedometers (and no grease) on the oil pan of your car.
You people consistently make me feel like a real wonder boy.
This isn't a failure of minimalism, it's a pretty cool page for people who are curious about the different SSL weaknesses that have been discovered over the years.
Calling this site a "failure of minimalism" is unnecessary and mean.
It's a tool for web client developers, like it says in the github README. Which is one click away.
If the developers of this tool posted this as a SHOW HN, then yes, you'd have a point. But that's not what happened here.
Just some /constructive/ feedback...
If you had submitted the link to HN with a descriptive title, then there wouldn't have been any confusion here either. So you're complaining about the site not saying what it does (even though it says so right in the README) while at the same time submitting the link to HN with a title that doesn't say what the link is about.
As some /constructive/ feedback, do you appreciate the irony?
Anyways this kind of info should not be hidden a click away in a github readme, it belongs in the actual web page.