Dude, What's with the Web Site?
heavycatweb.net
heavycatweb.net
For a site were tons of people speak of the value of simplicity, and every other day they "Show HN" their own "static site generator", it's surprising how many people do NOT get his message.
First, he is not a web developer. He is a busines owner that also had to create a site for his business. He chose to follow the KISS principle, and that's what he advocates: catering to content first, fancy stuff second (or never at all).
The peripheral details to his post (if he personally uses Flash for some stuff but you don't like it, or if he has a line about coding important apps in C and you disagree) don't matter.
What matters is that for content websites --which makes most of them out there, including all blogs and brochure-ware sites --, his advice is spot on.
As for his website "looking like crap" (as 1-2 people comment below). That's the whole point. As long as it gets the job done he doesn't care. And it's not worse than Hacker News (no paragon of great web design) or Paul Graham's site.
Would you rather read PGs eassays in his website, or some moron's zero-content marketing fluff on a great looking, fancy-ass website, with CSS 3D transforms and the whole works?
I'd rather read PGs essays on a great looking, fancy-ass website. Why the false dichotomy?
Because real life is full of dichotomies, and they are not all false. They even exist in our profession -- we call them "engineering tradeoffs".
Have you seen many "fancy-ass websites" with great essay content?
Perhaps you can find 1 or 2. I doubt you can find 10. There's a reason for that too. Most of the good writers I've read value simplicity, both in their writing and in their presentation. And, as they believe in the value of their content, they see no need to dress it on a "fancy-ass website".
That's what the whole "content first" / "minimalism" etc movement has been all about, from the 37 Signals blog to the emergence in our community of stuff like Jekyll.
And I don't see what the fancy-assness of the website would add to PG's essays. Care to enlighten me?
That doesn't justify the specific dichotomy you presented. Nor does the general lack of (vaguely defined) "fancy-ass" websites with good content.
In my opinion 37signals has a "fancy-ass" blog with solid content. It has a clean, pleasing look, displays well on mobile and browsers, and even provides a search interface. PG's essays could be better presented in all of these respects.
Maybe we should get your definition of "fancy-ass" so we can decide what we're even talking about.
Well, I'm a pragmatist. If I observe a "general lack" of a certain combination of things ("fancy ass websites" with "good content") I assume there's a reason for that.
It doesn't even matter if the connection is casual. It's enough that it exists, because that means that the presense of one ("fancy-assenss") is enough to predict with good success the lack of the other ("good content").
>In my opinion 37signals has a "fancy-ass" blog with solid content.
I see nothing fancy ass about 37signal's block. It's "clean, pleasing and displays well on mobile and broswers" not by some fancy-assness, but because it's minimal and bare-bones -- the very opposite of fancy-assents.
Essentially it's merely styled text.
>Maybe we should get your definition of "fancy-ass" so we can decide what we're even talking about.
Well, if we go by TFA's description, that would be anything that couldn't be achieved with HTML 4 and no JS.
"Here's a pro tip from a seasoned veteran of web development: if you want to do something really remarkable on a computer, you don't write it in HTML. You write it in C."
I've have finished high school since a long time. I don't write stuff to get "upvotes".
>"Here's a pro tip from a seasoned veteran of web development: if you want to do something really remarkable on a computer, you don't write it in HTML. You write it in C."
Gee, perhaps I've adreesed that, maybe in the part were I write specifically: "The peripheral details to his post [like] if he has a line about coding important apps in C and you disagree, don't matter".
Not only it doesn't matter (in the context of his actual message, with is about another thing altogether), but I agree with him.
95% of the important stuff we use to get amazing stuff done is written in C/C++. From our OSs and Word Processors, to Photoshop and our Browser. Heck, even Google Search is done in C++, and even Facebook had to create a C++ PHP VM to handle the amazing volume of data they do.
Seen any web stuff that's much more than "let's recreate stuff we had on desktop (See: Atwood's Law) with easier deployment but crappier performance and usability"?
And, more importantly, that doesn't depend of a huge stack of C/C++ code underneath? (From the JS JIT to the browser, to WebGL, to the OS down to the TCP/IP Stack).
Also, sites like Facebook, Google, etc. have done some pretty amazing stuff with this web platform, going well beyond what it was originally intended and "text and images." Has he ever looked at Google Docs?
I did, and still prefer to use a Desktop Office Suite. For the far better responsiveness, tons more features (I do use), and lack of dependence of Google.
It's ironic because all the websites he listed (with the exception of Craigslist) have incredibly complex front-ends.
With the exception of Craigslist, all of the sites he lists are complex web applications.
The author conflates shiny gimmicks and modern web technology.
Besides the slight hypocrisy, I understand the point the author is trying to get off as simplify simplify simplify. When you have been doing it for as long as he has, seems like the natural progression.
That's not actually the point. The point is that the author wants to be seen as a badass iconoclast. Unfortunately, he (or she) has no actual valid ideas, so he's joined a cargo cult of simplicity-worship, as if eschewing everything complex in a web design automatically makes it good.
The points made are hilariously ignorant. The argument about how it was dumb of people to make Doom for DOS because "DOS wasn't designed for that" is jaw-dropping. Claiming that you should write all web stuff in C, OMG. The defensive explanation about why they build sites with Flash. Oh wait, I just figured it out. These guys are Flash developers and nobody wants Flash these days, so they're flailing, trying to explain why modern web development practices are no good, but sites that consist solely of a Flash widget are totally where it's at. All is clear now.
I think the author of the article wants to compare that to, say, the starcraft menu interface. Or windows desktop applications. Or, to a lesser extent, flash interfaces. This would be a good example. Can you imagine doing this in HTML ? http://demo.northkingdom.com/gettheglass/
And he does have a point. Recreating the starcraft interface in HTML5+CSS+Javascript is possible of course. In the same sense that you can write windows 95 in pure lambda calculus (frankly, I think the lambda calculus rewrite would be easier since there's translation tools).
I'm with the rest of the people here. Those fancy interfaces have little function, don't interact well with the rest of the world (e.g. search engines, content aggregators, ...), they're accessibility nightmares, ... But they're cool. But my opinion on them has exceptions : for some things, like games, that's more important than all those other things.
You are making the exact same mistake he is. You are picturing what you remember of YouTube and in your recollection, it is simple. This is because they have done a reasonable job of using a simple design, not because they have avoided "moving" things. Go look and you will find plenty of menus, tabs, comments, and other ui elements that are built of the exact stuff he says is worthless. Holding any of these sites up as an example of being essentially just text and a few images just indicates that you don't have much of an eye for detail.
But let's be honest : they're ugly. Youtube, for example looks like an ancient file manager, at best.
Let's compare, a native application with a -somewhat- similar purpose versus youtube.
XBMC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34h_sQ7-G1s
TiVo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNvgoLVzijE (I realize it's an irritating commercial. But look at the interface)
Netflix on ios: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-4_ADXYT3E (sorry about the reviewer, and already much worse than XBMC or TiVo)
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com
This is a very nice animated interface (imho): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCw0eWa-LkA (not related to videos though)
The sad part is, that you're right about Youtube as compared to some of it's online alternatives. Compared to those, it's not bad. But the whole point was to criticize online development tools like HTML and Javascript, as compared to offline ones. Flash versus HTML and the quality of interfaces they enable.
I would even go so far as saying that, when it comes to native apps XBMC and TiVo count as "good". They don't quite match my standards for "great" at all. Youtube ... euhm ... is at the level where I'd have trouble accepting it from a first-year programming student. Certainly wouldn't merit an A.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say, but it seems fairly obvious you don't agree with the OP's crazy pronouncement that websites should just be text and a few images. We may be in one of those "violent agreement" situations, so I'm just going to call this argument done. :)
I can't even figure out the point of it all, between the tangential boasting of being one of the first sites on the web (is this even true?), saying to write in C instead of HTML (is he programming-illiterate?), rants about how bad "background music, gimmicks" are and then boasts that their site will use Flash because it will "make our graphics, music, voices and games look and sound good".
This doesn't even look like satire, it's complete nonsense as far as I can tell.
I agree with their philosophical principle though, a content site shouldn't be as complex as an application, but they often are.
WTF?
I love the idea of simplifying until all that is left is the bare minimum to get the job done.
How can someone simplify with so little understanding of the subject matter?
I can appreciate a well-designed and well-built site. One that pays attention to hierarchy and how the information is presented with an eye toward performance and scalability. I always find that my favorite sites are the ones that seem to take Edgar Allen Poe's advice for writing a short story. Every component has a reason for being there (i.e., it is functional). If the component or element's purpose is to be there for the sake of simply being there (it just looks cool!), then it shouldn't exist.
I suppose that's minimalism. But oftentimes, minimalism goes against what people think of in terms of "creating an experience." Most of the time when I visit a website that creates an experience, I am left with a sour taste in my mouth.
What?
Edit:: oldest Archive.org entry for this domain is 2009; http://web.archive.org/web/20090213172323/http://www.heavyca...
I think the author forgot to check out the noted companies' other web properties...
https://www.gandi.net/whois/details?search=hikousenenterpris... and the parent company were both created in 2008 https://www.gandi.net/whois/details?search=palaceinthesky.co..., so either the author has a time machine or is lying?
Sometimes that takes the form of a fancy JS single-page scroll (http://www.apple.com/iphone-5s/) to give a more natural flow to a traditional sales funnel. Sometimes that means robust streaming video (https://developers.google.com/youtube/), so people can watch live music or election coverage from home. Sometimes, it's adding a Leaflet map widget to one of the most design-conservative sites on the web (https://twitter.com/LeafletJS/status/240820008605851648) to help people find new apartments. All of these sites are elegant and work as expected, and they rely on far more than HTML4 and inline style tags to do so.
I've been in the Web business for over a decade.
The original Heavy Cat Multimedia company site was likely not part of the first 200 sites to go live on the Web. Search engines then did not have the analytics results to prove this because that's all there was. Yeah. They've been around for a bit. They just weren't the first site with a background color other than gray.
During that time, I've learned a few things. One of them is that probably half of Heavy Cat's competition soared to amazing heights by building "cool" Web sites to market their products. The reason is pretty simple. HTML is designed to present text and the occasional image. When you spend money and time to try to make it do more than that: innovation is born.
CSS is not intuitive. The only reason most people don't complain more about it is because they learn to use it. HTML is not intuitive either, but at least it's easy to learn once you realize there's a Box Object Model. JavaScript is very useful, and also pretty amazing. You can spend days, weeks and months cramming them together in new and innovative ways and ultimately you'll end up with a lot of well spent time and a site made of unique functionality and the occasional video.
You know those sites with the long lists of really amazing-looking Web designs? Funny how all those links go to prosperous sites with a link trying to sell you the products they've created.
DOS was the same way. It was a simple, quick shell and file system for PCs. It took a couple of stone cold geniuses years to make the DOOM engine. Why? DOS wasn't designed for that. Which is why they made it in C with their own graphics library and only hooked into the system APIs they needed. All the DOOM engine parts had to be invented from scratch.
I have decided after over a decade that I'm tired of trying to make bad developers understand the abilities of the Web. HTML is amazing and full of possibilities. It can be molded like clay into beautiful creations. That's it.
Here's a pro-tip from a seasoned veteran of Web development: if you're going to write an article flaming Web technologies, learn to capitalize Web and JavaScript correctly. And, more seriously, never use markup as a high level imperative language.
Now I do get some benefits from doing Web sites this way. One, it's simple and easy to update with the advent of modern technologies like content management systems. Two, it's not cluttered with distractions like all the incoherent blog articles. Three, they load ultra fast when you keep scalability in mind. Why look at that! We've solved all the problems most "shitty" Web sites have, at a portion of the profit they generate!
Think about all the most popular, successful Web sites. Google. Craigslist possibly, YouTube -- I mean Google. Facebook. Twitter. Even Apple's company site. What do they all have in common? Mountains of servers, load balancers, support staff, etc. to preserve up time and availability. There's animation, video, color backgrounds, textures, window decorations, animated drop-down menus, sound in general, gimmicks like games and apps, gizmos like Google's widgets or gew-gaws (whatever that may be). They are all complex and functional, and those six Web sites -- well more like four -- together represent about <a non-verified, completely shot from the hip> dollar amount value.
Simplistic and forgotten. That's what Heavy Cat's site is going to be. They have a lot of information, if you can consider seven main pages to be "a lot". They have a choice. They can spend six months building a gee-whiz site, or they can build more marginally profitable products. They chose the products.
They use Flash too, as a final insult. You know why they use Flash? Because it's the only thing they learned how to use. The tools integrate well into their established workflow and they interoperate well with all the tools designed by the exact same software firm (somehow). They allow them to make graphics, music, voices and games look and sound good. As they should, with the monthly subscription costs.
Someday Heavy Cat might use HTML5 too. But Flash had a 16-year death, so they're going to use what doesn't work with the majority of the world. If you are on an Apple phone, or just don't want to run Flash, their site will look even shittier. If you want to look at their Flash stuff, bend to their will.
They also no longer care about SEO, so you won't see their Web pages on any search engines much. Searching for anything but "Heavy Cat" directly yields no results referencing their site.
Matt
I'm calling shenanigans.
From the article:
Google. Craigslist. YouTube. Facebook. Twitter. Even Apple's company site. What do they all have in common? Text and the occasional image. There's no animation, video, color backgrounds, textures, window decorations, animated drop-down menus, ambient sound, background music, gimmicks, gizmos or gew-gaws.
Let's see:
Google: Currently has a game on the homepage. Certainly could be considered a `gimmick, gizmo, or gew-gaw.`
YouTube: Obviously has video, some fancy modals can be found by hovering over certain things, I'm sure there's a ton that I am missing.
Facebook: The site is built on databases, JavaScript, and other technologies the author apparently considers `slow, buggy nonsense`. Where do you think all those user images are stored? Chat certainly requires either AJAX or Websockets (I have not checked).
Twitter: OK, we are closer to `text and images`. Still, these guys released Bootstrap http://getbootstrap.com/ which changed the web -- obviously huge proponents of CSS. I think the understanding today is -- even if you are not a designer/front-end developer, it is unacceptable to deliver work without minimal styling, since you can throw Bootstrap on something with little effort. Do you prefer plain browser styled inputs to that? Twitter also has a ton of infrastructure underneath that 'simple' 140-character messaging 'social network'.
Apple: http://www.apple.com/mac-pro/ Enough said.
--
And finally, the comment `Here's a pro tip from a seasoned veteran of web development: if you want to do something really remarkable on a computer, you don't write it in HTML. You write it in C.`.
I'm confused whether you mean "do something remarkable on a computer" (as written) or "do something remarkable on the web". Your essay appears to be a rant on why, you think, the web sucks. I get it, most of the technologies we use are somehow dependent on C (CPython, most databases, OS). So, we are standing on the shoulders of giants. Those libraries written in C enable us. What does that have to do with the average web developer doing something remarkable? Most of us will never have to deal with the scaling problems of Facebook, Twitter, etc. Python is fast enough for me. Ruby is fast enough for most Rails users. If I ever need more performance, perhaps I will look into Go. The key point is `if`. I'm not going to start a new web project in `C`, when modern languages and frameworks ease the level of effort to write the code, and contain features I would otherwise have to re-implement.
You sure you aren't trollin`?