Hacker News Reader

Comment by azemetre | Hacker News Reader

Back in the day there use to be a joke website called "every fucking bootstrap site" [1] where it would lambast the popular design zeitgeist of the time.

I really wish websites would opt for more distinctive looks rather than the massive homogenization we see across the web. Everything looks the same when it doesn't have to. Things can be stylized while accounting for accessibility and usability.

I don't know what to call this "feeling" but man is it depressing. We went from replicating magazines to making unique (and often clashing) home pages to trying to appeal to the most average of sensibilities where it all becomes counter intuitive.

Probably not fair to pin this on w3c because this can easily apply to several hundred other sites.

It really does make you question why bother having a time of designers, frontend developers, project managers, etc, etc to just come up with the exact same thing as everyone else.

[1] https://www.dagusa.com/

View on HN

I don't know, if there's ever a website that I want to be boring and readable, it's the W3C. I do not want an exciting or unique W3C site. I want it to be organized and designed to be as readable and easily navigable as possible. I do not want to guess how to use a menu or search for links. I want it to work like that thousands of other boring sites I've used before, because when I'm at the W3C, I'm not there to be inspired, I'm there to get some specific information. I don't want any nonsense between me and the spec I'm looking for.

I disagree, I think a degree of homogenization is good for information heavy websites, like government ones [1][2][3] and sites geared towards documentation. Consistency here is good because it makes things familiar and therefore means people spend less time trying to figure things out/find what they're looking for. Creativity isn't necessarily the point with sites like these. Now if you're marketing a product or showcasing something on the creative side, that's a different situation entirely and in that case I agree with you. The Bootstrap wave 10 years ago was indeed excessive.

[1] https://18f.gsa.gov/

[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/project-gigabit-...

[3] https://www.healthcare.gov/

I think certain fads are a little dreadful in terms of unoriginality - those humaaans illustrations, for example. But I think most of the web really should look similar. I think of brochure websites like resumes: you're trying to depict key points without distractions and obstacles. Just like that one person's "unique" resume is actually the last one you want to read, so is that unnecessarily "original" website.

The insight with "every fucking bootstrap site" wasn't about sites having similar looks, it was about sites haplessly repeating the same design-forward look and feel.

Bootstrap invited sites to use huge full-bleed stock photos, carousels, colorful buttons, large icons, slide out menus, etc when none of that fancy design language actually resonated with the function of the site.

The desire wasn't to mock boring sites into hiring rockstar designers to make their designs even more unique and fashionable. It was for boring sites to lay off on the cheap whoopy doo design (because design-forward content is tiring when too familiar) and just present themselves clearly and without all the shitty pizazz.

This site does have that problem, but its remedy is basically the opposite of what you seem to be suggesting.

I agree with you... except this IS the W3C, and the whole point is they set standards for websites. If they looked nothing like every other site, that'd actually be a bigger problem.

Hang on a bit. If this website should have a "look and feel" like other websites then what is the point of W3C? The stated aim as I read it is to make the web more consistent. But we need diversity, that is where progress comes from.

Google/Firefox/Adobe Flash/React/Angular/etc innovate. W3C just attempts to keep them consistent. They're a standards committee.

"W3C develops these technical specifications and guidelines through a process designed to maximize consensus about the content of a technical report, to ensure high technical and editorial quality, and to earn endorsement by W3C and the broader community."

I'm not addressing if I like the W3C or if I think we'd be better off if W3C was more diverse/progressive. I'm just saying that if you judge them based on their own stated goals, their website's design fits the mission.

I'd know those FontAwesome icons on https://beta.w3.org/developers/ anywhere.

Honestly though consistency is probably preferred here. I see top nav, a hamburger icon, a breadcrumb title bar and a search button, I have confidence in my expectations for how those will behave. With a documentation site, the ability to navigate and find what you need takes precedence over being 'delighted' by some landing page.

Actually in this case they broke my expectation by having the search just redirect to duckduckgo with a site parameter.

The Memphis seems like a decently modern take as well with the gradients thrown in.

I disagree with this specifically for the W3C on everything _except_ the illustration on the front, which I have dubbed "big pants people." That's an unnecessarily homogenous design trend, but everything else is homogenous for the purposes of readability and accessibility, which is very inline with the W3C.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90711508/facebook-made-a-certain...

> The look became derisively known as “globohomo” (global homogenization), “corporate Memphis,” or—even more archly—”corporate tech style.”

To be fair, I'm not sure you want a ton of uniqueness when it comes to documentation, I just want to be able to find what I'm looking for. For example, IBM and ESRI have what I would consider to be terrible documentation because of their unique take on structure.

Oh I love that site! Very appropriate demonstration for what is possible and what is not preferable. I agree that distinctive designs are far better. For the W3C I think they could best serve to have multiple versions of their website to best demonstrate the variety of websites that would occur-- information/static, production/dynamic, non-production/update-able-- since they have reputation as the web standards body.

It kind of depends on what your app is/does. It would be kind of hypocritical that we all settled on the same form factors for mobile devices, but we want the apps that we use on them to all be radically different looking or "artistic".

Most modern UI kits look and feel the same because we have figured out what works and what doesn't.

"why bother having a time of designers" -- on an individual basic application level, definitely. Just get a reasonable UI kit and save the money.

Do you have have any good examples of useful and visually interesting websites?

bikeshedding isn't helpful.

its called having intuitive ux. dont make users think. user settings and notifications go in the top right, logo and home page link in the top left. if you dont do this, you've screwed yourself in a way you may or may not ever quantify.

i agree it can get boring to see bootstrap everywhere, i also agree with "why bother having designers". but at the end of the day, i want my users productive and not thinking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com