Hacker News Reader

> It’s not that nerds, geeks and technology-savvy audience of HN wants something for the “power user”. It’s that we want simplicity in design. We want to get rid of decoration and get to the essence of what is being presented. Animations, fancy loaders, etc get in the way of enjoying the content.

My whole point was that "decoration" can be enjoyable.

> “Chill out, this is supposed to be a relaxing experience” is not the answer. It’s condescending and out of touch with reality. You haven’t put forth a compelling argument besides taking an anti-cliche stance.

You're assuming all users have this stance, and that's what's actually condescending and out of touch to me. You haven't really put forward any compelling argument that doesn't fit my description of HN users assuming what they are looking for in a website is in any way representative of what the average user wants. It's the same thing as the tech crowd getting shouting at phone manufacturers because they're removing the headphone jack: surprise surprise, the average user doesn't care enough about plugging in an adapter that they won't buy the phone.

> Do you remember Apple’s “Cover flow” where you can scroll through album covers? This website reminds of how designers get carried away by fancy, novel ideas. It was a massive failure, everyone used album lists, it was slow as hell and Apple finally killed it in one of the recent MacOS releases. It’s not about “power users”.

Cover Flow was a failure as part of a music organisation software. This is part of Google's "Arts Experiments". It's _meant_ to be pretty and flashy.

I think we are both arguing in a healthy manner - I realized and I edited my post.

Continuing: “Cover Flow was a failure as part of a music organisation software.” - I feel like we should separate presentation from art. There are exceptions such as experiential art, performance art, where presentation is the art.

Just the way cover flow gets in the way of enjoying music, animated websites get in the way of the content (the experiment). Experiment is fine, its presentation is flawed.

I strongly and vehemently oppose anything that gets in the way of the content. Imagine if Rothko’s paintings were displayed in a gold plated frame with LEDs flashing - I’m taking it to an extreme to make a point that designers should do as little as possible and allow the content to speak for itself. It doesn’t mean that we should get rid of designers and hand over a .zip file of the images. It means that don’t make the experience frustrating. Don’t add your own flair.

> representative of what the average user wants

The use of the word “average” implies measurement. I’d be interested in seeing quantified data showing what the average user wanted from this user interface. Surely the designer measured everything and produced an optimal product. How many milliseconds is the correct transition time for each animation? What particular transparency fraction is most pleasing and to what extent did different transparency values detract? Plot the function.

I say this mostly in jest because when I was a software engineer working with designers I’d rarely see any measurement or study. I have seen design decisions made after extensive user study but not always. Sometimes there’s just a pronouncement: This is “pleasing” and that is not—because it is so. If I wanted to change the search algorithm I’d have to show with measurement that the new one was better. If a designer wants to change the color of a button or the text on a label, no such measurement hurdle exists.

It’s entirely possible I’m wrong and the designers of this site have pages of data showing this particular interface to be more effective than alternatives. Not sure I’d bet on it in general though.

I am not assuming.

I spent several years working in A/B testing. Based on behavior, none of the artistic branding made any difference to whether users got engaged in sites. Make the site fast. Put your action items in prominent places on the page. Make them big and obvious. Make the site usable. Make it easy for people to get to what they want. Those things mattered again and again. But pretty aesthetics? Never once have I seen it matter.

Want to piss off a designer? Subject the designs to an A/B test. Want to really piss off a designer? Show the resulting null result to the designer afterwards.

As far as I am concerned, anyone focused on the look and feel of webpages serves the purpose of making the people who own and run the site happy. If they talk about what the users want, I have to ask what testing they have done with actual users. If they can't produce tests, then I conclude that they are spouting BS.

If this does not sound possible to you, I would suggest that you explain the enduring popularity of minimalist websites like craigslist, plentyoffish and google.

You think HN has a unified view? And does that "we" include me and you? Or is there a chance there might be levels of perspective and the point of this project has gone way over you?

I think when I was writing the post, I was rebuking the GP post about how HN always complains about the website design. In that sense, I was referring to “we” as HN.

Indeed, the reason I joined HN after being a silent viewer for a while was because I enjoy the arguments, the back and forth, essentially exploring levels of perspectives.

If "we" wanted to get rid of decoration then why are so many posts so long and full of extra language that doesn't really help get to the point?

It could be that "we" isn't the correct term to use.