Hacker News Reader

Comment by jspthrowaway2 | Hacker News Reader

That's a fair point, even if it's unfair to the author (the site publishing her could use some work, granted). If one does bail on the article, though, I wish that wouldn't lead to a comment of some kind.

View on HN

As the publisher of said site, an honest, genuine question to you both (or any who share their opinion) - what is it about the site design that turns you off so much? What 'work' does it need, in your view?

(Edit: typo)

For me it is all the watermarking effects, with background and foreground elements becoming merged. This creates a cluttered effect needlessly, because without these I think the site would be a lot more pleasant to look at with no other changes.

Since you asked:

I'd suggest removing all the 'complicated' layering effect and transparencies. Even hovers over the year links are creating transparencies on the article text. Just leave the article text area 100% opaque, lighten the background to improve contrast. I want to read easily and not off a weave basket.

There is a tad too much variation/combo of the colors used. You have red and grey (which is good) but you have a gazillion shades of it (not good) and you have them alternating roles, ie: red text, red box, grey text, grey box, dark grey text, dark grey box - tighten your color usage. Since your colors usage are everywhere, there's no accent color. (Like I can't tell which color is used to declare text links since all text colors can be text links)

The red is a very strong color - and since author box is in red, it's competing with the article for attention (the article should be the main focus. But it doesn't mean you should make the article box red.)

Move Date under Year (navigation) or move the year next to date - don't make the readers' eyes/brain work, trying to correlate the 2.

Don't show links that aren't clickable and will never have content. ie: Year 1999 etc. Just start from 2005.

Overall the page is super busy with its big range of color shades, layering with transparencies and confusing visual hierarchy/navigation.

Thanks for replying. It sounds like your preferred aesthetic is completely at odds with what we're trying to achieve. No harm in that.

I don't think it's that bad, probably because I quite like the aesthetic, but it really could do with being just a little bit less busy.

Just as another opinion, I love the design of the site. I saw 24ways a couple of years ago, was truly amazed at the "different" design. I still think the same design is truly unique and captivating.

Just to get some other opinions out there.. It would be nice if it responded more for large screens instead of only handling the small ones, but I love the look of the site.

Thanks. The responsiveness was retrofitted by me (not a designer) in 2011. Narrowing a design is easier than widening it.

For what its worth (and I'm no designer): I really like the mobile version of your design. The text is easy readable, the sections clear and there is no annoying clutter.

That's the same design, we just allow the page to adjust to the available screen width.

He definitely means once all the weird column/row effects and text are gone. The site becomes simply, with your header, your content wrapper, and the content. It's a lot nicer at that point.

The longer I look at the desktop version, the more I like it, but my first reaction was not good. It's too much. (I'm a hacker, not a designer, btw)

The big red site title at the top is obscured by the "HOME", "ARCHIVES", etc. boxes below it to the point that it's actually difficult to read. The color choices in that section make everything hard to read. It's not important (I come for the content, not the site title) but it demands attention by taking up half the page and containing horribly clashing colors.

It's just far too busy. There's a white button title on top of a semi-transparent gray button which is on top of a darker gray background which is on top of big red letters which are on top of some sort of weird faux-paper diagonal strips. It's like there was an explosion in the layer factory, and it increases the effort needed to actually read the text beyond what I'm willing to put in.

I also wouldn't do exactly the same thing regarding the transparencies (maybe kill the extension of the year/day highlights behind the primary white-ish content area, and just only have those highlights be visible in the framing area?), but my first reaction was actually "oh, cool, a site daring to have a bold design and go its own way instead of trying to look 'beautiful' like most of the bland sites posted here."

So don't tone it down too much. You can't please everyone, and there's a big design echo-chamber on here. And actually, on second thought, maybe I wouldn't change it at all. Be bold and distinctive. Own it. Design isn't about toning stuff down to the lowest common denominator.

And I love the ease of navigation provided by the top year bar and side day bar.

When I said "ugly site" in my original comment, I meant from the perspective of a person leaving vitriol on the thread here. So, ugly to them, not to me. I realize now on second read that probably isn't clear, but I have to let it stand. Forgive the seemingly-direct attack.

I think your site is visually striking, but it's a wee bit busy for me. That's all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com