Not because of the pizzazz but because it essentially put only one thing to learn on the screen at once. It was like a "getting started" section that might be slower to go through but feels like it's faster to understand.
Possibly even worse is the lack of snapping to the sentence, which means the user has to guess how far they need to scroll to fit the text in the available space. The text is even so large that some sentences don't fit in that space. It becomes a seemingly endless loop of reading 6 words, scrolling, reading 8 words, scrolling too far and then scrolling up, reading a 5 word joke, scrolling not far enough, etc.
In fact, it's 39 mouse wheel scrolls to get to the bottom of the page, all to read one paragraph of actual information -- and that information is mostly a bunch of boisterous posturing, in order to make a pitch that amounts to a couple of prescribed patterns.
It’s really not that novel a concept.
They could have made this presentation into a 30 second video, which would have extremely simplified the access to information, while also only requiring one click, and still providing the ability to pause the flow of information when necessary. Instead, the page takes 39 manual scrolls to read through a bunch of tech bro jokes.
The reality is that they could have produced this same concept in a way that doesn't force such extreme interaction to consume very minimal content, resulting in the same "awesomeness" without wasting the user's time or energy.
Unless you have something new to add to the conversation, it's beyond trollish to repeatedly assert that I shouldn't be allowed to speak my mind (or even respond to people who replied to me) just because I don't agree with you.
You've told me to "accept it and move on" at least three times, which is an assertion that I shouldn't comment or express my opinion. So yes, you said exactly something of the sort, multiple times. That you're trying to convince me otherwise is some extreme gaslighting.
> I do however have a problem with you aggressively arguing
You're greatly exaggerating any perceived aggression. You try to make it sound like I'm some troll resorting to name-calling, when all I've actually done is provide detailed arguments based on actual experience. You're welcome to interpret them as aggressive or patronizing or whatever you like, but that's entirely subjective, ironically.
If anything, I'd say repeatedly replying to all of my comments and telling me to "move on" is far more aggressive than anything I've said.
> that there's an objective truth
Again, you're pretending that neither standardization nor subject matter experts exist.
You keep mentioning this "we" as if you speak for the entire world. In reality, there are far more commenters speaking negatively about the site than there are positively.
> A lot of people have told him why they do but he keeps arguing.
You're again suggesting that I shouldn't be allowed to respond to people who replied to me, which is antithetical to how forums work. And, in fact, almost no one has actually articulated why they like it -- they've just said that they like it, while refusing to acknowledge any negative aspects.
> No idea why you want to defend such a toxic person.
The irony here is very rich -- you calling other people toxic, when all you've done so far is tell me that I shouldn't be allowed to express my opinions, all because you don't personally agree with those opinions.
Perhaps you are coming at the interpretation from an “experts” viewpoint? (With all the bonuses/hindrances that can come along with it)
Off topic Have you ever done psychedelics ?
And as the GP pointed out, the layout and content is essentially already in video form. They just chopped that video up into a website that forces the user to consume that tiny amount of content in an extremely specific way, which also requires a bunch of extra effort and massively wastes time -- for example, 3 full scrolls just to get past an animation full of loading icons and a single completely irrelevant sentence.
Counting "scrolls" (whatever that means) can't be a healthy way to engage with something you don't enjoy.
I could say the same thing to you -- if you like it, then move on. Nobody is forcing you to read my comments, and it is antithetical to the concept of a public forum to assert that I shouldn't be allowed to comment just because you don't agree with me.
> Counting "scrolls" (whatever that means) can't be a healthy way to engage with something you don't enjoy.
As a web developer, half of my job is analyzing metrics which describe how effective and usable a website is. This particular thread is a discussion about site usability, and I'm using decades of experience and actual site data to show how bad the usability is, which very relevantly includes counting how many times they are forcing someone to scroll to read a single paragraph of text.
You're reversing the series of events. A user visiting a page (especially a homepage) expects it to offer relevant information in an easily consumable way. It is impossible for a user to automagically intuit that they can get more easily consumable information on a separate page, just because a link to that page exists.
So, what you're suggesting is that it's good UX to make the homepage so annoying that multiple pages are required to provide the same information. That's called an anti-pattern, and really makes that nearly 1MB page load (and 80kB loading gif) a complete waste of time and electricity.
Even worse is that the feature information doesn't actually exist outside of the homepage, so you're making an incorrect assertion that people who don't want to scroll can instead just click a button.
> Every information is carefully chosen, so you keep scrolling and reading. After that you go to the doc to read more.
In this case especially, the information is the exact opposite of carefully chosen. It is chock full of jokes and irrelevant "aren't we cool" posturing, which comes across as pure "tech bro" and does a terrible job of convincing someone why they should use and trust this framework as a foundation for their product.
> I've never seen better UI/UX that hook me in so quickly. If it was just regular page I would think "ah, just another framework" and close the tab.
A bizarre statement. You're admitting to be willingly manipulated by style over substance, and that you have a premeditation for not actually reading a site's content unless they've met some arbitrary level of flashiness. If a project manager asked you to research frameworks, and your response was to supply them with a list of homepages that you thought "looked the coolest," you'd be fired on the spot.
I'm doing web development and UI/UX for some time, same as people who build this (I didn't even know who built this until now). And it checks every mark in my UI/UX book. Shared with my peers (devs, PO and designers), all think the same. Great UX.
If that is Great UX, I think I prefer bad UX.
And I'm glad that I don't work with your project managers, who apparently think that choosing frameworks based on a homepage's arbitrarily "cool" presentation is appropriate methodology.
> Everything you stated is just your opinion (phrases like "anti-pattern" or "bad UX", "style over substance"), and that's fine.
Yes, when somebody says something, it's their opinion -- not sure what point you're even trying to make here, honestly. However, I provided you with specific reasons for those opinions based on decades of published research by countless developers and psychologists. Intentionally slowing down information consumption IS an anti-pattern. Making people scroll dozens of times to read one total paragraph IS bad UX. Limiting information in favor of animations IS style over substance.
Whereas your entire argument is based around the presentation "looking cool," which is an opinion not even shared by the vast majority of commenters in this thread.
> I'm doing web development and UI/UX for some time, same as people who build this (I didn't even know who built this until now). And it checks every mark in my UI/UX book.
You appear to be asserting that "you know better" because you're a web developer. However, I've been a web developer for 25 years, so your attempted posturing doesn't win you any points here. Also, there are literal books on UI/UX -- tons of them, actually -- and they all disagree with your imaginary book.
> Shared with my peers (devs, PO and designers), all think the same. Great UX.
To show you how silly that argument is, I just shared this page with some folks -- three developers and two designers, all of whom have been in the industry for a minimum of a decade -- and asked them to give me a quick <5 word impression of the site. These are their responses:
"Page loads already scrolled to the bottom. Is that what it's supposed to do?"
"some shitty designers wet dream from 10 years ago"
"LOL - this is bad."
"stopped reading at: (What the heck does event.preventDefault do anyway?)"
"Garbage."
Well, except for the 50+ people who upvoted my comments and the dozens of people who made similar commentary about the website -- but I guess they don't count as real people because they don't agree with you?
> You didn't convince anyone. They already agreed with you.
You're right, I should have assumed that you know everyone on the site and surveyed them after my comments to determine that, in fact, zero people found any of my arguments convincing.
If you are the kind of person that interprets everything as cliché, then you are liable to become one.
I think it is more usefully analyzed as a landing page, with a lot of emphasis on how it looks, at the deliberate tradeoff of the text being harder to access.
On the practical side, personally I'd expect to find docs, getting started, and source repo which I found immediately.
Some surprises though: I didn't notice the scroll until after looking at links (intended?). The way some elements disappeared if you scrolled just slightly past them entering the page. I didn't find the scroll jacking surprising after first seeing it, I read it as "not a normal text document" shortly after.
Of course you might in the end not care for the visual side, or not expect it to come at such a great expense in terms of scroll # or similar metrics. I think that's a risk they take with this kind of page.
edit: typo
I don't quite like the low information density it uses, but at least it doesn't take away my control. I prefer that a site doesn't do it at all, but if they do they should at least do it this way !