Hacker News Reader

Comment by mirzap | Hacker News Reader

Well, on a first page without any scroll you have action buttons which leads you to the pages where you can read at your own pace. For people who don't want that they've put small bits of information on each scroll. Every information is carefully chosen, so you keep scrolling and reading. After that you go to the doc to read more. 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. This is is how UI/UX should be done. Bravo!

View on HN

> Well, on a first page without any scroll you have action buttons which leads you to the pages where you can read at your own pace. For people who don't want that they've put small bits of information on each scroll.

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 really glad I'm not working with UI/UX and project managers that you think would do that. Everything you stated is just your opinion (phrases like "anti-pattern" or "bad UX", "style over substance"), and that's fine. I don't find this homepage annoying. It's the opposite. I find it very informative. I'll for sure get involved with remix thanks to the great presentation and first impression they had on me.

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.

> I'm really glad I'm not working with UI/UX and project managers that you think would do that.

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."

You have chosen a strange hill to die on. Just accept the fact that we like this (I love it!) and move on. You won't convince anyone with your lousy attitude and obnoxious arguments.

> You won't convince anyone with your lousy attitude and obnoxious arguments.

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. Some people like it, some people don't but it's all subjective no matter how hard you try to prove otherwise.

You keep trying to assert that nobody should ever have a discussion about subjective topics, but there's a reason why standardization exists, and those standards are born out of discussions where people disagree.

> 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 this is "the page that the title links to", it literally just gave me a headache. I am not sure why, something with how things moved in unexpected ways to me trying to scroll, I think.

If that is Great UX, I think I prefer bad UX.

Why are you so obsessed with this "tech bro" construct?

If you are the kind of person that interprets everything as cliché, then you are liable to become one.

Amidst many paragraphs across several comments, I twice (and passingly) described the author's jokes as being reminiscent of the "tech bro" character that everyone on this site is familiar with, because that is exactly how they sound. Can't imagine how you interpreted that as an obsession, or why you thought it was ammunition to "take me down a peg." Your trolling needs some work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com