This is also a web page
michaelaz.github.io
michaelaz.github.io
The more you add to a web page, the more it obscures the fundamental interaction you want people to use. It's harder to make an interactive page than a static one, so I'm not really blaming the OP. The real lesson is, "focus on the interactions which count". Google has a lot of cruft on their front page, but the only thing really distracting you from the search form is their logo.
As for the ideas, that's great but I remember writing in a similar flush of enthusiasm 20 years ago. Much as I like YouTube, it's not the same as going to the opera. And part of what makes a good library valuable is what it excludes as well what it includes. Right now the WWW is too much like a shopping mall. I'm more interested in the internet of things.
Jesus. I must be getting old or something.
I feel like this trend is a new kind of sickness plaguing web design everywhere. Even The Verge does it in articles: http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/17/4436332/macbook-air-review...
If you are an iOS user, prepare to be bummed in a few months...
You know how dark your emphasized words are? The whole piece needs to be at least that dark just to be readable.
http://blog.tatham.oddie.com.au/2008/10/13/why-light-text-on...
Light-on-dark can be more comfortable for long-term screen reading, but a bold or heavier weighted font is really needed.
I felt the original piece was effective because it really was expertly designed.
Backlit screens can still play havoc on my eyes, so for longer content, I just send it over to my eReader, to read later.
I prefer light on dark text - when I'm in a dark environment, and dark on light when I'm in a bright room. It also depends on the monitor. But each to their own.
The nice thing about taking the design into your own hands - is that you can bypass most of the author's styles - and then you can quit moaning. An author can't cater for all tastes.
Each browser has different ways to customise them, and it can be a bit of a fiddle, and sometimes you might end up breaking out into another browser to read something - but it _can_ be done.
Hacker news looks horrible to me without my styles applied. I strongly recommend taking control of your browser.
I think he was indeed placing a greater weight on the value of words over other tools, but I don't think that's necessarily incorrect. Certainly the web is about more than just words: it's about connecting human ideas together. Those connections can take form through a vast array of media. But I agree with Justin that at its core, the web is more about words than it is about videos or images or WebGL (as it is today). If you took the words out of the internet I think I would be missing some of the most important parts. If I didn't have access to youtube or flickr (videos or images) I think I'd still have access to a lot of the value I find in the internet.
Words are not what the web is about in the same way paint isn't what art is about.
I think he was pretty clear that the words are a tool (i.e., a means to an end). I think he said webdesign should be about words (i.e., don't get wrapped up in frilly widgets and shinny buttons over the content of your communications), not that the web itself is about words.
This is true, but it doesn't mean that i won't go to the opera/library anymore because of the internet...
I'm not sure I get what point you're trying to make.
(Context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5913381)
Well said.