Replying to comments about our web page design(research.exoticsilicon.com)
research.exoticsilicon.com
Replying to comments about our web page design
https://research.exoticsilicon.com/articles/replying_to_comments
210 comments
> I find the snark about it off-putting
Same. I think this is one of those things where they were having some fun, and then some people on the Internet overreacted with great hyperbole, and so they're issuing this response to those people, but I'm sitting here reading it and it feels aggressive, and I think, "Wait, what did I do? I'm just sitting here not bothering anybody", and it begins to feel like a low-level conflict. I think a lot of internet discourse is like that, unfortunately.
Same. I think this is one of those things where they were having some fun, and then some people on the Internet overreacted with great hyperbole, and so they're issuing this response to those people, but I'm sitting here reading it and it feels aggressive, and I think, "Wait, what did I do? I'm just sitting here not bothering anybody", and it begins to feel like a low-level conflict. I think a lot of internet discourse is like that, unfortunately.
Probably trying to copy the "cool"/snarky PR approach of dbrand[1] or Ryanair[2].
[1] https://twitter.com/dbrand/status/1626716812128952320
[2] https://twitter.com/Ryanair/status/1569268623235231748
[1] https://twitter.com/dbrand/status/1626716812128952320
[2] https://twitter.com/Ryanair/status/1569268623235231748
Aye. Big "we have a developer that knows CSS" vibes, rather than "we have a designer" energy. Feels like someone should have told them the pitfalls of chasing a design that was hand-crafted for a specific format (print media; magazines, specifically), or at least why the choices that were made for that medium were made, and why they may cause issues in this medium. For that kind of stuff, though, you need someone who has a deep knowledge of design, rather than just a high skill at implementing designs.
Of course, with such an obviously high skill at design implementation, they did plenty enough to be perfectly fine for most use-cases, so it's hard to be too hard on them about any of their choices. Everything works just fine. And to ignore complaints that ignore your design choices is a fine disposition, as well! No reason to bother with people who aren't interested in your vision and don't contribute.
But to snark about the complaints, as if there's nothing you could do better? Smacks of an aloofness that is an off-putting characteristic for an organizations purporting to do research.
Of course, with such an obviously high skill at design implementation, they did plenty enough to be perfectly fine for most use-cases, so it's hard to be too hard on them about any of their choices. Everything works just fine. And to ignore complaints that ignore your design choices is a fine disposition, as well! No reason to bother with people who aren't interested in your vision and don't contribute.
But to snark about the complaints, as if there's nothing you could do better? Smacks of an aloofness that is an off-putting characteristic for an organizations purporting to do research.
Lol, this is the first website in a long while that made me feel sick after scrolling for a while. I need to show this to the folks in office and see who pukes or wipes their head.
Looks like we need to "seek professional medical advice"
Looks like we need to "seek professional medical advice"
On Firefox, you can just prepend "about:reader?url=" to any web page and you get the plain-text reader view. There's apparently a config setting in the userChrome.css file to make reader available like this on all sites.
In Edge you can highlight text and click read in Immersive Reader or prefix the url with read://
Some sites have it in the address bar, but I've never found any documentation from MS that makes it clear how to ensure that it is always there.
Some sites have it in the address bar, but I've never found any documentation from MS that makes it clear how to ensure that it is always there.
That's a good point, and a good tip for when Firefox doesn't prompt it automatically. I'd forgotten entirely about reader mode on Desktop, I do use it all the time on mobile though.
Playing Devil's advocate, if the themes are inaccessible, the user can always pick another one. Monochrome might provide the contrast ratio you want.
My recommendation is always accessible by default. If the default theme is not accessible, it may be difficult for the user to switch to one that is.
It's so easy to make a site that is accessible - a blank HTML document with no CSS essentially is. It takes work to make a site that isn't.
It's so easy to make a site that is accessible - a blank HTML document with no CSS essentially is. It takes work to make a site that isn't.
Too late to edit but I didn't mean "blank" as in no content, that would be pretty pointless. Poor choice of words.
Per original link
>>Arghhhh! Your pages give me a headache, and/or eyestrain.
>Stop using the site immediately and consult a qualified ophthalmologist. Seriously, no static display on a modern and correctly adjusted VDU such as a computer monitor or phone screen should ever be inducing headaches or eyestrain in a healthy individual when properly used for reasonable time periods, and with sufficient breaks. If it is, you may have an underlying health condition which has otherwise gone un-noticed.
this statement basically implies that you have no intention of creating a website that is accessible to all users, and to all of those users with cognitive, vision, or neurological issues: "tough luck, go see a doctor!". Though I understand the goal here in terms of style and this page is indeed WCAG friendly enough in terms of some of the most obvious success criteria- this website is an objective nightmare for those with a variety of cognitive disabilities.
>>Arghhhh! Your pages give me a headache, and/or eyestrain.
>Stop using the site immediately and consult a qualified ophthalmologist. Seriously, no static display on a modern and correctly adjusted VDU such as a computer monitor or phone screen should ever be inducing headaches or eyestrain in a healthy individual when properly used for reasonable time periods, and with sufficient breaks. If it is, you may have an underlying health condition which has otherwise gone un-noticed.
this statement basically implies that you have no intention of creating a website that is accessible to all users, and to all of those users with cognitive, vision, or neurological issues: "tough luck, go see a doctor!". Though I understand the goal here in terms of style and this page is indeed WCAG friendly enough in terms of some of the most obvious success criteria- this website is an objective nightmare for those with a variety of cognitive disabilities.
I find it wildly ridiculous that we've more or less abandoned the practically simple idea of "the web is text, so just let people render the text how they want in their browsers."
Yet another reminder of the overblown nature of UX/UI in general. Given the current push for accessibility, seems like "make the text accessible" should be the goal above all else.
Yet another reminder of the overblown nature of UX/UI in general. Given the current push for accessibility, seems like "make the text accessible" should be the goal above all else.
But the text is all there? Is there some sort of DRM embedded in the html that prevents you from rendering it how you'd like?
Browsers are dropping the ball. Yes, You can disable styles, and dig through settings to configure proper rendering. But browsers are 1. Defaulting to giving web designers control and 2. Are hiding the overrides deeper and deeper in settings.
The browser should default to your operating system’s default color scheme, text size, and font face, and no CSS. There should be a setting somewhere you can opt in to “let the web site decide these things.”
The browser should default to your operating system’s default color scheme, text size, and font face, and no CSS. There should be a setting somewhere you can opt in to “let the web site decide these things.”
You can use a userstyle on the webpage. It works. It's quite straightforward actually.
I think most people are going to give up before they find that link in the footer, and regardless these themes still present accessibility issues, especially that static image background. I personally find even the "mostly monochrome" style very difficult to read through and I'm guessing I'm not the only one.
They even offer ten themes and a chooser which is 9 themes more than 99% of websites.
On this page, sure. On all pages, not so much.
No, explicitly on every page. It's a user agent level choice.
The way a lot of people experience "the web" is not primarily text, but instead compressed screenshots of text. And screenshots of screenshots, ad infinitum.
Time to hop over to Gemini.
I have to admit, there's a lot of crap on this page. But...
They do provide reasonable contrasts for all text on the page.
The text is a reasonable size.
Which is honestly better than most websites, especially technology sites.
That said, it would be nice if they supported readers though, or directly linked to their "gem text" (pure ascii) site. Putting blame on the browsers for the site's design choices is lazy.
They do provide reasonable contrasts for all text on the page.
The text is a reasonable size.
Which is honestly better than most websites, especially technology sites.
That said, it would be nice if they supported readers though, or directly linked to their "gem text" (pure ascii) site. Putting blame on the browsers for the site's design choices is lazy.
Actually, a site that is structured well enough to be usable in text mode browsers is already more accessible to all users than most of the “beautifully” designed examples.
There's a different kind of incapacity involved: incapacity to control your device and software to have them suit your needs. The reply assumes that user has no other option except to drool and stare at what website author chose.
There's a different kind of incapacity involved: incapacity to control your device and software to have them suit your needs. The reply assumes that user has no other option except to drool and stare at what website author chose.
this generally isn't how designing with cognitive or neurological disabilities in mind works, we don't want the user to have to make adjustments in order to use a website as this only creates more friction. Not to mention the fact that we don't assume that the user is knowledgeable on how to make those adjustments, especially with the senior population which is a large segment of the cognitively impacted population who are using the internet.
unlike with the blind or low vision population, those with cognitive and neuro issues often aren't aware of assistive tech, often aren't familiar with the accessibility settings on their devices, and sometimes aren't even aware of the disability they are dealing with and are undiagnosed.
unlike with the blind or low vision population, those with cognitive and neuro issues often aren't aware of assistive tech, often aren't familiar with the accessibility settings on their devices, and sometimes aren't even aware of the disability they are dealing with and are undiagnosed.
The users will never be knowledgeable if no one is teaching them anything. They also won't make adjustments if the ability to adjust itself is removed because It's Better This Way™.
I am aware that the site is original for the sake of originality (slanted divs look awful on my system, too). However, the advice to stop and find out what is wrong instead of just keep doing what everyone is doing is pretty sane.
I am aware that the site is original for the sake of originality (slanted divs look awful on my system, too). However, the advice to stop and find out what is wrong instead of just keep doing what everyone is doing is pretty sane.
[deleted]
same thing for all these apps/websites with dark mode only.
spotify, steam, epic and many more.
big diff between profit/trend driven design and philosophical/practical design.
spotify, steam, epic and many more.
big diff between profit/trend driven design and philosophical/practical design.
I've always liked ExoticSilicon's design, but not until this post did I realize their smart bit of CSS for default font size:
This is going to be the default font-size for all of my websites now (preceded by a fallback for maximum compatibility of course).
font-size: min(max(1em, 1.3vw), 1.3em);
This is going to be the default font-size for all of my websites now (preceded by a fallback for maximum compatibility of course).
I absolutely hate this. Viewport width has nothing to do with DPI and should not affect the font size. I didn't get a larger monitor just so that everything can waste more space with giant text.
> I didn't get a larger monitor just so that everything can waste more space with giant text.
That's what the outer min() is for: it makes sure the font size caps out at 1.3em which usually translates to 16 x 1.3 = 20.8px, which is well within the recommended size range for prose anyway.
What that whole snippet does boils down to exactly what they said in the article:
> The main global stylesheet uses the browser default font size, smoothly scaled up to 130% on higher-resolution displays as the baseline for the body text of the whole document.
On a low-dpi screen, nothing changes. On a high-dpi one, if you haven't set your browser text size to something larger, this snippet saves you from tiny unreadable text. Also note that ctrl+ and ctrl- to zoom still work just fine. It's not as dramatic a change as the sibling comment said. You can try it out on their site to see for yourself.
That's what the outer min() is for: it makes sure the font size caps out at 1.3em which usually translates to 16 x 1.3 = 20.8px, which is well within the recommended size range for prose anyway.
What that whole snippet does boils down to exactly what they said in the article:
> The main global stylesheet uses the browser default font size, smoothly scaled up to 130% on higher-resolution displays as the baseline for the body text of the whole document.
On a low-dpi screen, nothing changes. On a high-dpi one, if you haven't set your browser text size to something larger, this snippet saves you from tiny unreadable text. Also note that ctrl+ and ctrl- to zoom still work just fine. It's not as dramatic a change as the sibling comment said. You can try it out on their site to see for yourself.
> That's what the outer min() is for: it makes sure the font size caps out at 1.3em which usually translates to 16 x 1.3 = 20.8px, which is well within the recommended size range for prose anyway.
Recommended by people who only read twitter-length content maybe.
> On a low-dpi screen, nothing changes.
Repeat after me: viewport width has nothing to do with DPI.
This absolutely does change the font size on large low DPI screens.
If you want to scale with DPI you don't have to do anything. CSS already does that for you by default. Even "px" is scaled by DPI in CSS.
> On a high-dpi one, if you haven't set your browser text size to something larger, this snippet saves you from tiny unreadable text.
Yes, don't do that. Respect the users settings as they are set or give up any pretense that you are doing so and just set reasonable fixed font size.
> Also note that ctrl+ and ctrl- to zoom still work just fine. It's not as dramatic a change as the sibling comment said. You can try it out on their site to see for yourself.
That you can fuck things up even worse does not make this "hack" good.
Recommended by people who only read twitter-length content maybe.
> On a low-dpi screen, nothing changes.
Repeat after me: viewport width has nothing to do with DPI.
This absolutely does change the font size on large low DPI screens.
If you want to scale with DPI you don't have to do anything. CSS already does that for you by default. Even "px" is scaled by DPI in CSS.
> On a high-dpi one, if you haven't set your browser text size to something larger, this snippet saves you from tiny unreadable text.
Yes, don't do that. Respect the users settings as they are set or give up any pretense that you are doing so and just set reasonable fixed font size.
> Also note that ctrl+ and ctrl- to zoom still work just fine. It's not as dramatic a change as the sibling comment said. You can try it out on their site to see for yourself.
That you can fuck things up even worse does not make this "hack" good.
That's the thing. These hacks alwways end up negatively impacting some edge cases. I found a site once that used JS to autosize the text... as a result you couldn't manually resize with ctrl - and ctrl+.. It's better to stick to standards
If you want it to be even more readable you could do the following:
font-size: clamp(1em, 1.3vw, 1.3em);
I don't see any issues with this particular code (although for larger sizes, there may be an accessibility issue related to zooming). In general, I would recommend avoiding the use of vw-only units because the computed value may not change with zoom.
I learned this from https://adrianroselli.com/2019/12/responsive-type-and-zoom.h...
I learned this from https://adrianroselli.com/2019/12/responsive-type-and-zoom.h...
I would only use this kind of thing on the root element, then size all other elements relative to the root element e.g. h1 { font-size: 1.5rem; }. It's more manageable that way IMHO.
Thanks for the tip on clamp() by the way, TIL.
Thanks for the tip on clamp() by the way, TIL.
https://utopia.fyi/blog/designing-with-fluid-type-scales
This is a good write up of using clamp and fluid type
This is a good write up of using clamp and fluid type
That's less reasable bwcause the order of arguments is mysterious.
Here's an explanation of this expression from Phind:
https://www.phind.com/search?cache=bd161914-4d18-4758-b540-2...
I've always loved the site too c:
Design proof that being "unique" doesn't mean "good".
I'm certainly glad they like what they've built. But it breaks a lot of design concepts that help with UX (some in micro ways that aren't really noticeable without the aggregate effect). The "max character width" is a really valuable thing for "readability". But why bother with learning design when you're using all of the TECHNICAL specs 'exactly as specified'. Why bother with design responsibility when you're already absolving yourself of technical responsibility ('it should not be our job to work around bad tech...').
Of course, the most galling thing is that they're not actually using the spec, as it is specified. Using `section` tags everywhere is inappropriate. They are meant to break up content in the `article` tag.
But, okay, whatever; you're going to cling to the spec but still ignore the parts of it you don't like. Fine. Like they said, it's not causing screen-reader issues, so who cares, right? Except that they ALSO don't use the `header` tag within those sections to denote what is clearly a header. Not a "heading" (h1-6, used for breaking up paragraphs in articles), maybe, since it's not in an article and that can cause funky screen-reader performance, but there's no reason to NOT use a `header` tag. This use case is literally what it was made for; giving a generic header that you can style and make accessible on your own. So why use a `section` tag erroneously, but then eschew using the `header` tag for the exact purpose you need? (why use it? screen readers/accessibility)
Nothing in this seems like "well-considered design". Rather it seems like "good enough, and how I like it." Which is a perfectly wonderful way to design and run a website! It's just kind of shitty to then go write an entire article telling anyone who misunderstands your uniqueness for a different flavor of uniqueness that you are actually doing everything exactly right and that anyone who dislikes your site should take their "problems" elsewhere. A fine enough attitude, if you're in to that kind of gatekeeping, but I've never found it compelling or endearing.
I'm certainly glad they like what they've built. But it breaks a lot of design concepts that help with UX (some in micro ways that aren't really noticeable without the aggregate effect). The "max character width" is a really valuable thing for "readability". But why bother with learning design when you're using all of the TECHNICAL specs 'exactly as specified'. Why bother with design responsibility when you're already absolving yourself of technical responsibility ('it should not be our job to work around bad tech...').
Of course, the most galling thing is that they're not actually using the spec, as it is specified. Using `section` tags everywhere is inappropriate. They are meant to break up content in the `article` tag.
But, okay, whatever; you're going to cling to the spec but still ignore the parts of it you don't like. Fine. Like they said, it's not causing screen-reader issues, so who cares, right? Except that they ALSO don't use the `header` tag within those sections to denote what is clearly a header. Not a "heading" (h1-6, used for breaking up paragraphs in articles), maybe, since it's not in an article and that can cause funky screen-reader performance, but there's no reason to NOT use a `header` tag. This use case is literally what it was made for; giving a generic header that you can style and make accessible on your own. So why use a `section` tag erroneously, but then eschew using the `header` tag for the exact purpose you need? (why use it? screen readers/accessibility)
Nothing in this seems like "well-considered design". Rather it seems like "good enough, and how I like it." Which is a perfectly wonderful way to design and run a website! It's just kind of shitty to then go write an entire article telling anyone who misunderstands your uniqueness for a different flavor of uniqueness that you are actually doing everything exactly right and that anyone who dislikes your site should take their "problems" elsewhere. A fine enough attitude, if you're in to that kind of gatekeeping, but I've never found it compelling or endearing.
> It's just kind of shitty to then go write an entire article telling anyone who misunderstands your uniqueness for a different flavor of uniqueness that you are actually doing everything exactly right and that anyone who dislikes your site should take their "problems" elsewhere.
"Am I so out of touch?
No. It's the children who are wrong."
-Seymour Skinner, "The Simpsons"
"Am I so out of touch?
No. It's the children who are wrong."
-Seymour Skinner, "The Simpsons"
This site eats about 50% CPU on Firefox (on an older laptop) for every page that is open at the same time, and it continues to eat 50% after closing all pages. It doesn't use JavaScript and no visible CSS animations, so what is it? Apparently, the favicon! Which, as explained on the linked page, "is SVG, (with S.M.I.L. animation)". Since the favicon is still listed on the list of favourites on the browser start page, it continues to eat CPU... until clearing the browser history.
"Ask Firefox developers"
Another perk of staying on Firefox 83.0, the favicon doesn't even load!
- On edge on linux (yes) cpu process usage increase as well, but not as much.
- On chromium cpu usage do not evolve but it is not animating the favicon.
If you want to disable it on firefox and are using ublock origin, you can do so by going to the ublock origin dashboard --> My Filters and add the following line:
||research.exoticsilicon.com/images/icon.svg
- On chromium cpu usage do not evolve but it is not animating the favicon.
If you want to disable it on firefox and are using ublock origin, you can do so by going to the ublock origin dashboard --> My Filters and add the following line:
||research.exoticsilicon.com/images/icon.svg
Ask the Firefox team this question!!!!!!!
you just need a bigger cpu, so that the site uses less.
That's it, I've completed the Internet. This is my new favorite page. The aesthete in me may bristle, but the pragmatist agrees. There are many ergonomic and UX concerns to consider when designing things, but I think they make their case very well and I didn't find it a problem to read at all.
the background distracts too much, but otherwise it's pretty readable.
There are various themes and it works well on mobile and doesn’t look like every single other website out there today, so I count it as a win.
It’s kind of how so many LaTeX documents look the same because nobody bothers to design anything; the inverse problem from Word where things are too easy to change.
It’s kind of how so many LaTeX documents look the same because nobody bothers to design anything; the inverse problem from Word where things are too easy to change.
> It’s kind of how so many LaTeX documents look the same because nobody bothers to design anything
Oh, it certainly is, but the further you drift from "scientific report/research paper" the worse the defaults get.
If you enjoy a bit of well-done nostalgia, I suggest giving vacation.inc [1] a try, too (same guys from poolsuite.net [2]).
[1] https://www.vacation.inc [2] https://poolsuite.net
[1] https://www.vacation.inc [2] https://poolsuite.net
Big fan of Poolsuite!
Another one is here: https://www.vistaserv.net/
The font rendering is especially impressive to me. You can read more about it here: https://www.vistaserv.net/blog/90s-fonts-modern-browsers
Another one is here: https://www.vistaserv.net/
The font rendering is especially impressive to me. You can read more about it here: https://www.vistaserv.net/blog/90s-fonts-modern-browsers
Is that Apple Garamond?
Call me old fashioned, but web sites that overdo the CSS and assert a strong design opinion just kind of annoy me now.
I wish we could go back to a WWW where the browser was the user agent and the user was the authority on text size, font face, colors and so on. Browsers have devolved from applications allowing users to browse hyperTEXT into these free-for-all canvases for web designers’ creativity.
Technically this should be solvable by using the browser’s “no styles” feature, but many web sites seem to be careless with the structure of their HTML such that “no styles” isn’t even readable.
I know this ship has sailed and my opinion is a fart in the wind at this point, but the web could have turned into a nice, fast, consistent way to publish structured and linked TEXT, but instead we got this “Remote Photoshop for Web Designers.”
I wish we could go back to a WWW where the browser was the user agent and the user was the authority on text size, font face, colors and so on. Browsers have devolved from applications allowing users to browse hyperTEXT into these free-for-all canvases for web designers’ creativity.
Technically this should be solvable by using the browser’s “no styles” feature, but many web sites seem to be careless with the structure of their HTML such that “no styles” isn’t even readable.
I know this ship has sailed and my opinion is a fart in the wind at this point, but the web could have turned into a nice, fast, consistent way to publish structured and linked TEXT, but instead we got this “Remote Photoshop for Web Designers.”
> I wish we could go back to a WWW where the browser was the user agent and the user was the authority on text size, font face, colors and so on.
This is still the case.
Your browser allows you to choose which font and size you want to use, as well as editing the css loaded on a tab and most browsers have extensions available to automatically load the css of your choice for a particular site.
The fact is that you choose not to use that freedom.
This is still the case.
Your browser allows you to choose which font and size you want to use, as well as editing the css loaded on a tab and most browsers have extensions available to automatically load the css of your choice for a particular site.
The fact is that you choose not to use that freedom.
I'd argue there's a good middle ground to be found between the two extremes. We should style without overstyle.
Another wonderful internet fart in the wind is bidirectional links
https://maggieappleton.com/bidirectionals
https://maggieappleton.com/bidirectionals
Tried out all of their themes on the welcome page, which seems like a nice showcase of what's available when you switch the themes: https://research.exoticsilicon.com/welcome
Here's the aspects that I personally enjoyed:
I'd probably just have a chuckle about the quirky design and go browse other sites that might have the information that I'm looking for, due to my eyes scanning them more quickly and easily, much like you'd look at data in a spreadsheet (sans annoying pop-ups and other dark patterns that web is plagued with). But you know what? Their website design is none of my business, it's fine for them to make their own choices and run it how they desire, even if some of the answers on this particular page are a bit on the nose.
Can't say whether we'd benefit from more or less of that, in general, though.
Here's the aspects that I personally enjoyed:
- Tropical nights: this feels like a pleasant theme on the eyes, almost like an IDE dark mode
- Nitrate memories: another theme that feels fairly readable, with the contrast being okay in *most* places
- Light pastels: this one dials down the colors a little bit so they're not as distracting
I'd probably just have a chuckle about the quirky design and go browse other sites that might have the information that I'm looking for, due to my eyes scanning them more quickly and easily, much like you'd look at data in a spreadsheet (sans annoying pop-ups and other dark patterns that web is plagued with). But you know what? Their website design is none of my business, it's fine for them to make their own choices and run it how they desire, even if some of the answers on this particular page are a bit on the nose.
Can't say whether we'd benefit from more or less of that, in general, though.
I really really miss the multi-skinned website thing. Having multiple personalities for your site was such just a rip roaring cool thing. That whole idea of a site being an experience has gotten simmered away. In many cases that reduction of friction is due & appreciated, but there's something to be said for having a bit of an experience too, even if it is a kind of shallow/transactional bit.
My first webshack internship had a nice website with like 20+ very slick early web designs folks could switch between. So cool.
There's the Css Zen Garden, a set of html elements to practice your design chops on. That was so the spirit of web design, highlighted so powerfully how bodaciously rad having html structured information & css styling as separate entities was, rather than as almost all UI toolkit do having the two concerns more intermingled. Zen Garden Forever. https://www.csszengarden.com/
My first webshack internship had a nice website with like 20+ very slick early web designs folks could switch between. So cool.
There's the Css Zen Garden, a set of html elements to practice your design chops on. That was so the spirit of web design, highlighted so powerfully how bodaciously rad having html structured information & css styling as separate entities was, rather than as almost all UI toolkit do having the two concerns more intermingled. Zen Garden Forever. https://www.csszengarden.com/
> That said, when most of the web looks more or less the same way, it feels like this site stands out too much and the design detracts from the experience, in my eyes.
The site's design is not to my taste -- but I seriously love that it doesn't look like almost all of the rest of the web.
Most of the web all looks the same. I applaud Exotic Silicon for pushing back against that.
The site's design is not to my taste -- but I seriously love that it doesn't look like almost all of the rest of the web.
Most of the web all looks the same. I applaud Exotic Silicon for pushing back against that.
Well, the current trend of gradients in text colors (usually purple to blue) is something we were told not to do in the 90s, because it would make our sites look like cheap videogames from the 80s. We would be doing it with GIFs.
However inventing something new is really difficult especially after the space of the ideas had been explored for a long time.
As for fashion, once you exhausted all the variations of the current fad you have to start again with an old one, with a twist. The result is that all those new web sites look old to me.
Exoticsilicon looks really old.
However inventing something new is really difficult especially after the space of the ideas had been explored for a long time.
As for fashion, once you exhausted all the variations of the current fad you have to start again with an old one, with a twist. The result is that all those new web sites look old to me.
Exoticsilicon looks really old.
It is the year 2031 and every website that didn’t adhere to modern design “sensibilities” has been hunted down and summarily executed…
…well, almost every. Exotic Silicon is still at large, last seen in the vicinity of the 46 block.
…well, almost every. Exotic Silicon is still at large, last seen in the vicinity of the 46 block.
Reminds me of Lings Cars: https://www.lingscars.com/
Not a niche or hobbyist website, but a genuine car leasing company. Who's owner deliberately styled the site like this to act as a differentiator in a crowded market. It's certainly unique, I'll give them that.
Not a niche or hobbyist website, but a genuine car leasing company. Who's owner deliberately styled the site like this to act as a differentiator in a crowded market. It's certainly unique, I'll give them that.
This one is actually great though.
> You can trust me… I am Ling! Hope you enjoying your visit to LINGsCARS.com
Sometimes marketing is so bad it’s good
Sometimes marketing is so bad it’s good
That website is just perfect.
Wow that average time to respond timer is nice, wish more sites did that.
What's most shocking about this site is that they added a mobile layout in 2022. Before it was desktop-only.
> You agree not to use the content to train AI systems or machine learning systems.
https://research.exoticsilicon.com/terms
First I’ve seen that.
https://research.exoticsilicon.com/terms
First I’ve seen that.
Seems unlikely to be enforceable as "overly expansive", as someone could surely argue our brains are just AI and/or ML but in organic form. Does that mean I'm not allowed to learn from the website?
> as someone could surely argue our brains are just AI and/or ML but in organic form.
Our brains are artificial intelligence? Humans are machine learning?
I mean, c'mon. If humans are artificial, then what do you call real? If humans are machines, then what on earth isn't?
Our brains are artificial intelligence? Humans are machine learning?
I mean, c'mon. If humans are artificial, then what do you call real? If humans are machines, then what on earth isn't?
>someone could surely argue
No, they could not. Even if they did, those things are just different. It won't change what AI/ML is, a bunch of bytes in memory and on a disk. Just making a bunch of reaching comparisons, won't absolve AI/ML of responsibility.
No, they could not. Even if they did, those things are just different. It won't change what AI/ML is, a bunch of bytes in memory and on a disk. Just making a bunch of reaching comparisons, won't absolve AI/ML of responsibility.
Neural networks are modeled of human brains in some ways but the majority of AI is not and humans just anthropomorphize the results. Humans don't take in terabytes of data and spend hours fitting a multidimensional regression between labels and the raw data. We build logical connections to understand things over continued exposure. Just because AI "feels" human does not mean it approaches anything actually resembling a human mind. What holds us back from understanding this in the legal system is the fact that lawyers and judges are so technically illiterate.
> Neural networks are modeled of human brains in some ways
Hum... Not really. They are modeled after our periferic nervous system. Detailed knowledge about the brain wasn't very available at computer science departments at the time they were created. Besides, they have a much "cleaner" design that would win the computer scientists esthetic preferences every time anyway.
Hum... Not really. They are modeled after our periferic nervous system. Detailed knowledge about the brain wasn't very available at computer science departments at the time they were created. Besides, they have a much "cleaner" design that would win the computer scientists esthetic preferences every time anyway.
Are you aware of what the "A" in AI and the "M" in ML stand for?
No, I work in a field without having zero idea what the most basic terminology actually means.
Are you aware what "organic" means? Have some imagination. We can call it OI and OL to make it a bit easier if you want.
Are you aware what "organic" means? Have some imagination. We can call it OI and OL to make it a bit easier if you want.
If you called something OI and OL then you wouldn't be referring to AI and ML. They would be different things. It's clearly big brain time for you...
> Are you aware what "organic" means?
I am, but I always get an argument when I tell certain people that "all food is organic", despite the fact that's technically correct.
I am, but I always get an argument when I tell certain people that "all food is organic", despite the fact that's technically correct.
Did you know that different words have different meanings?
I think the one thing that strains the eyes a bit about the layout (besides people just using it as a metaphor for saying they don't like it) is that a lot of their themes use text shadow on all of the text, which makes it look slightly blurry, which in turn makes your eyes strain trying to focus on it.
They address this and tell you your browser is broken. But also that if you are using a non-broken browser and it's still hard to read for you then that's on purpose, they want it to be hard to read for you, because their content is for healthy people only.
they don't actually go into any detail how it's supposed to render, though. they refer to the standard but don't actually say what the browsers are supposedly doing wrong. It's not that the shadow being applied makes the text blurry somehow, it's that the shadow itself makes the text look like it's blurry, because it's very subtle. So, I don't buy it.
I deeply, un-ironically respect their ethos and their hideous, distracting color scheme
Agreed.
I have no idea who "exoticsilicon" are or if they read HN but if they do, free-for-life rsync.net accounts for any of them that care to contact us.
I am already making good use of this particular piece of content:
https://research.exoticsilicon.com/articles/lte_ethernet_bri...
I have no idea who "exoticsilicon" are or if they read HN but if they do, free-for-life rsync.net accounts for any of them that care to contact us.
I am already making good use of this particular piece of content:
https://research.exoticsilicon.com/articles/lte_ethernet_bri...
Can’t really argue with most of their logic. The site is fast and responsive. I did get a sense that most if the criticism is really based on anxiety about the authors own position, i.e., a buzzword internet startup type is of course going to feel panic if it is highlighted that their fancy designs and site that is heavily reliant on violating people’s privacy and security bogs down the site and the whole internet with it. It’s typical crabs in a barrel nitpicking.
And yes, I realize I just upset many sensibilities here.
And yes, I realize I just upset many sensibilities here.
The only thing the design needs is a max width on the paragraphs for large screens.
I suspect they would reply with "resize your browser window".
This is shockingly common but do these people resize their window for every site they visit? Or they keep the window narrow and then sites with side navigation need to put it somewhere else?
Having a large window should be telling the site "you have this space, make the best of it". Maybe it would be nice to have a built-in CSS property for "desired reading text width" but I think most people can pick a number and it is generally good for most readers.
Having a large window should be telling the site "you have this space, make the best of it". Maybe it would be nice to have a built-in CSS property for "desired reading text width" but I think most people can pick a number and it is generally good for most readers.
I'm one of those non-fullscreen browser (and most things in general, other than vim) window people.
> Having a large window should be telling the site "you have this space, make the best of it"
I 100% agree but I interpret this in reverse: if I made my browser window gigantic I expect you to use it. If I make my browser window small I expect you to responsively shrink.
The reason this doesn't happen is that it's pretty hard to build layouts that work across all these different screen sizes. That's generally why you get mobile/tablet/1600x900 desktop layouts and that's it.
---
I suspect this is another consequence of the app vs. text tension on the web. Apps are great to fullscreen: you want Spotify or Figma to take up the whole window. You don't want a single sentence to unfurl entirely horizontally. But there's no way to say, "I'm the kind of user who sets the browser window size to as much as you can use, so use it all" or "I'm the kind of user who wants you to center your text elements and take up at most 1600px of space even when my browser window is using 3800px."
> Having a large window should be telling the site "you have this space, make the best of it"
I 100% agree but I interpret this in reverse: if I made my browser window gigantic I expect you to use it. If I make my browser window small I expect you to responsively shrink.
The reason this doesn't happen is that it's pretty hard to build layouts that work across all these different screen sizes. That's generally why you get mobile/tablet/1600x900 desktop layouts and that's it.
---
I suspect this is another consequence of the app vs. text tension on the web. Apps are great to fullscreen: you want Spotify or Figma to take up the whole window. You don't want a single sentence to unfurl entirely horizontally. But there's no way to say, "I'm the kind of user who sets the browser window size to as much as you can use, so use it all" or "I'm the kind of user who wants you to center your text elements and take up at most 1600px of space even when my browser window is using 3800px."
Well, you could do something smart with CSS columns, but nobody does that.
Are you perhaps a Windows user accustomed to maximized windows only?
> This is shockingly common but do these people resize their window for every site they visit?
I don't. I never use my browser full-screen, but I do size it in whatever way makes it work with whatever else I have going on on my desktop. Usually, this is a very small window.
If that makes a site unusable, and if the site isn't essential, then I just move on to a different site. I'm not going to rearrange things just to accommodate the whims of some random web designer.
I don't. I never use my browser full-screen, but I do size it in whatever way makes it work with whatever else I have going on on my desktop. Usually, this is a very small window.
If that makes a site unusable, and if the site isn't essential, then I just move on to a different site. I'm not going to rearrange things just to accommodate the whims of some random web designer.
I don't resize for every window, but I'm also not bothered about having to resize it if and when it makes sense. It takes longer type in a domain name, so it's hardly a big deal.
I say this as an accessibility specialist - I think this site is fine. The authors have made a site that brings them joy and if they see customers dropping off and are fine with it, that’s OK.
For folks complaining of headaches or eye strain, browsers come equipped with forced-colors mode that enable you to choose your preferred color scheme.
For folks complaining of headaches or eye strain, browsers come equipped with forced-colors mode that enable you to choose your preferred color scheme.
I think it's cool! I applaud them trying something different. There's too much groupthink and too little creativity / humanity in modern design - 90s mainstream UIs, for all their faults, at least had a little fun and soul.
Reminds me of Every Bootstrap Website Ever, https://www.dagusa.com/
Has anyone here seen the original ooer subreddit?
https://old.reddit.com/r/Ooer/ best viewed on desktop
Enjoy it's luscious overdrive.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Ooer/ best viewed on desktop
Enjoy it's luscious overdrive.
Ha I actually kind of like this design its a bit different but works, I think the only thing that I might say is the reading length is a bit long maybe limiting to a set width in terms of length as its difficult on large screens to read across the full page but other then this not bad.
Have you tried that thing Bionic Reading it could be interesting for people to just digest the text further and quicker if that is the end goal but anyway its interesting I really do like it to be honest
Have you tried that thing Bionic Reading it could be interesting for people to just digest the text further and quicker if that is the end goal but anyway its interesting I really do like it to be honest
Bookmarked for inspiration. This was seriously refreshing even if I hope most corporate websites won't copy it.
Not everything needs to be hard and not everything needs to be dull.
Not everything needs to be hard and not everything needs to be dull.
Honestly the design is a breath of fresh (tropical) air. And the scrolling is sooo smooth.
Irony has gone too far when you're writing an article explaining how your ironically bad and retro web design is good, actually.
I'm not sure. It's only a problem if they expect anybody to actually read it.
Not far enough.
> If you insist on trying to use ‘reader’ mode to view our webpages, then you are simply creating your own problems.
Glorious website, please don't change
>progressive
nothing progressive about this design. just call yourself peculiar instead of giving this veneer of betterment
nothing progressive about this design. just call yourself peculiar instead of giving this veneer of betterment
> just call yourself peculiar instead of giving this veneer of betterment
A leader in the clubhouse for the Accidental HN Slogan of the Year award.
A leader in the clubhouse for the Accidental HN Slogan of the Year award.
The widespread adoption of this credo would improve modern life immeasurably.
I like how the bird levitates towards banner in homepage
It's disgusting for them to say their site should be fine for a healthy individual and that's enough. Not everyone is healthy! And if you're unhealthy and visit a doctor you often won't be instantly cured.
> Since admitting that you didn't realise the theme selector was there would make you look silly in front of people you don't even know
The theme selector is a link in the footer. It's probably the most subtle thing on the entire page. And it's not like they're using the rest of their real estate efficiently. I think it's fair to infer they prefer people don't realize they can change the theme until they've been annoyed.
> Since admitting that you didn't realise the theme selector was there would make you look silly in front of people you don't even know
The theme selector is a link in the footer. It's probably the most subtle thing on the entire page. And it's not like they're using the rest of their real estate efficiently. I think it's fair to infer they prefer people don't realize they can change the theme until they've been annoyed.
From the top of the front page, the first section leads to half a screenful informing you to choose a theme. It's the first and most prominent showed to new visitors, promoted on top of the front page.
if I control-f for "theme" the first hit is four screenfulls down (phone) and it's a reference in the middle of a long block of text that implies they have themes.
The first prominent mention of themes is a heading six screenfulls down that mocks you for not changing it. It doesn't tell you how to change it.
This site is an explosion of emphasis. They can use massive size and gradients and flashy colors to emphasize their mockery of me. If they choose not to use the same for their theme switcher link I think it's fair to infer they don't want to emphasize it.
The first prominent mention of themes is a heading six screenfulls down that mocks you for not changing it. It doesn't tell you how to change it.
This site is an explosion of emphasis. They can use massive size and gradients and flashy colors to emphasize their mockery of me. If they choose not to use the same for their theme switcher link I think it's fair to infer they don't want to emphasize it.
Good for them. It’s a fun website design and a breath of fresh air.
People who complain about offbeat-but-still-readable web design are killjoys who indirectly contribute to the sterility of the modern internet.
People who complain about offbeat-but-still-readable web design are killjoys who indirectly contribute to the sterility of the modern internet.
I really like the site and the qa thread.
A criticism: The site/theme info footer is off center to the right on Samsung Galaxy browsers (ff, chrome, etc), hiding half the footer text.
The only thing that really annoys me about this website is the fixed vibrant background images that interfere with the text. Otherwise, I find it quite refreshing to see something different. I have seen much worse typography on “professional looking” websites tbh.
However, it is not the most accessible of websites and I certainly wouldn’t want to have e.g. Wikipedia be designed like this (oof), but I don’t mind the occassional quirky rebellious web design adventure.
However, it is not the most accessible of websites and I certainly wouldn’t want to have e.g. Wikipedia be designed like this (oof), but I don’t mind the occassional quirky rebellious web design adventure.
The one thing I would change, which only the 1980s theme fixes, at the cost of monospace text, is to make the background non-scrolling (or, rather, non-fixed).
If the site text is not easily readable by anyone, you are doing something wrong.
This is like saying, we want to make our site progressive, so we'll embed a bunch of things in a magic eye, and the people reading can do free-viewing for that steroscopic effect.
Nevermind the simple fact that roughly 10% of the global population is color blind and as a result will biologically never be able to see it if the colors are wrong.
This is like saying, we want to make our site progressive, so we'll embed a bunch of things in a magic eye, and the people reading can do free-viewing for that steroscopic effect.
Nevermind the simple fact that roughly 10% of the global population is color blind and as a result will biologically never be able to see it if the colors are wrong.
[deleted]
> my designs draw from styles and concepts typical of 8-bit computer magazines in the late 1980s and early 1990s
I think they channel the feeling quite well
I think they channel the feeling quite well
Haha, this is great. Present as you will. Don't enslave yourselves to the refinement culture horde. It's okay.
Hacker News should hire them for a refresh.
This is good website.
Ok, we get it, your website's design is basically bad on purpose, and it probably generates a lot of free pr exactly because it is bad and because it's novel. However, I can assure you that my eyes are perfectly fine, but your website still makes me nauseous.
The 80s theme is my favourite, IMHO the easiest to read (and looks like my terminal)
[deleted]
Reminds me of Dinos Tomato Pie:
https://www.dinostomatopie.com/
The contrarian approach generates free marketing and serves as a filter to pain-in-the-ass clients who will nitpick about everything. Well played.
Beautiful! Finally somebody taking the best of old and new and the result is something different!
I think this is AI generated, because of obvious mistakes like listing elements of 90's web design which includes "sans-serif" and then in the next paragraph insisting that no 90's web design elements are used, while all the headers uses a sans-serif font.
Wow, the people running that website are pissed.
The whole website is playful as fuck.
This 100% felt like more playful teasing. At the expense of those who refuse to have a good time, who can't roll with it, who let themselves be tattered by tiny things.
It just going on and on and on just keeps highlighting how in depth & considerate & thoughtful they really are & keeps bringing out the joke more, about how hilarious & fun it is & how great it is to have such an amusing conversation piece.
This page is their moment of glory, a secret shrine to how awesome they are. The hurf-burf "this isn't 90's web design!" being way over precise & technical about the matter was a hilarious example of them just being here to have fun & be smart about shit.
This 100% felt like more playful teasing. At the expense of those who refuse to have a good time, who can't roll with it, who let themselves be tattered by tiny things.
It just going on and on and on just keeps highlighting how in depth & considerate & thoughtful they really are & keeps bringing out the joke more, about how hilarious & fun it is & how great it is to have such an amusing conversation piece.
This page is their moment of glory, a secret shrine to how awesome they are. The hurf-burf "this isn't 90's web design!" being way over precise & technical about the matter was a hilarious example of them just being here to have fun & be smart about shit.
I guess that's the problem with extreme snark. It's very culturally dependent and doesn't always translate well when taken out of the social setting that it grew in.
That page doesn't read to me as playful or fun, it reads to me as angry and bitter. Although I understand (now) that's not what they were going for, I can't make my brain read it any other way.
That page doesn't read to me as playful or fun, it reads to me as angry and bitter. Although I understand (now) that's not what they were going for, I can't make my brain read it any other way.
The whole experience drives a huge wedge into folks, as we see from the very strong breakdown of very negative vs very positive. The site's whole premise comes at the expense of severely agitating some people. Doubling down seems like the obvious move. I don't there's a real possibility of useful dialog or outreach with the discontent; making oveure's to a non-addressable market just doesn't make sense.
And it's not like they have particularly bad points either. They're over the top but basically counter-roasting far more over the top griping, for the most part. It's all pretty well constructed. I don't think they cause any additional or excess damage with this.
I don't always think shiboleths or in-comments are wise, but here in particular I think it adds greatly. It's almost entirely just people's disposition & response we see for how folks perceive this, and not at all cultural or information based. The context in question is mostly the reader themselves. This continues to parlay the grand-joke about emotions & people well, to me.
And it's not like they have particularly bad points either. They're over the top but basically counter-roasting far more over the top griping, for the most part. It's all pretty well constructed. I don't think they cause any additional or excess damage with this.
I don't always think shiboleths or in-comments are wise, but here in particular I think it adds greatly. It's almost entirely just people's disposition & response we see for how folks perceive this, and not at all cultural or information based. The context in question is mostly the reader themselves. This continues to parlay the grand-joke about emotions & people well, to me.
Well, as I said in another comment, I actually like that their website design pushes back against the huge beige conformity that constitutes most of the web. So I'm inclined to feel fondly for the company as a result.
I will admit, though, that that particular page put me off. It's just so hostile that it clearly says that I'm not welcome there even though I do agree with the substance of what they're saying. So I haven't looked at the rest of the site, and I don't even know what the site or the company is about.
I'm sure that they couldn't care less about me, though, and rightfully so.
I will admit, though, that that particular page put me off. It's just so hostile that it clearly says that I'm not welcome there even though I do agree with the substance of what they're saying. So I haven't looked at the rest of the site, and I don't even know what the site or the company is about.
I'm sure that they couldn't care less about me, though, and rightfully so.
in many cases, i turn off the page style.
this is one of them.
if i really feel i need the info and de-styling wont work, then i read the source.
if to no avail, i go elsewhere.
if i really feel i need the info and de-styling wont work, then i read the source.
if to no avail, i go elsewhere.
> i read the source.
You mean I'm not the only one who does this?? I think I end up doing that on about 25% of the websites I hit.
You mean I'm not the only one who does this?? I think I end up doing that on about 25% of the websites I hit.
Their "80s theme" should be more widely used
My online gripe is I can't use reader view.
Nice explaining, yet terrible web design.
does anyone know what's the string above the "NO CARRIER" written at the bottom of the page?
Kind of looks like an attempt at simulating the "modem dropped because someone picked up an extension phone while modem was connected" result. There was often a burst of random characters like that when the link went down due to "external causes".
Mom picking up the phone and dialing Aunt Madge?
They want the Cruelty Squad audience
Comes across as awfully defensive... Is this a satire website? I can't tell.
They are earnest trolls. They appear to be freelance contracting consultants, for people who need temporary work to solve a software problem. They don't care about being approachable or having a readable website. They do care about looking like smart edgy programmers, presumably because they only want to be hired by people who like smart edgy programmers. But I couldn't find how to hire them, so the whole thing may just be a goof for one person's personal hobby tech blog.
very cool, I like it
[deleted]
> Stop using the site immediately and consult a qualified ophthalmologist. Seriously, no static display on a modern and correctly adjusted VDU such as a computer monitor or phone screen should ever be inducing headaches or eyestrain in a healthy individual when properly used for reasonable time periods, and with sufficient breaks.
If it is, you may have an underlying health condition which has otherwise gone un-noticed.
So they’re saying that they’re aware that their website is inaccessible to some people with certain health conditions, and they don’t intend to do anything about it.
That’s like if a grocery store with a staircase at the front door put up a sign that says, “If you have trouble climbing these stairs, consult your doctor. No person with healthy legs should have trouble climbing these stairs. You may have a health condition.”
I mean, thanks for the advice, but you’re still excluding people.
So they’re saying that they’re aware that their website is inaccessible to some people with certain health conditions, and they don’t intend to do anything about it.
That’s like if a grocery store with a staircase at the front door put up a sign that says, “If you have trouble climbing these stairs, consult your doctor. No person with healthy legs should have trouble climbing these stairs. You may have a health condition.”
I mean, thanks for the advice, but you’re still excluding people.
This is not a grocery store. It’s a niche enthusiast website.
It’s supposed to be fun. Many fun things “exclude” people. Sports for instance. Music. Painting. There might be accessible versions. There are also inaccessible ones that trade off artistic expression over other factors. The internet is a big place. There’s room for all of it.
It’s supposed to be fun. Many fun things “exclude” people. Sports for instance. Music. Painting. There might be accessible versions. There are also inaccessible ones that trade off artistic expression over other factors. The internet is a big place. There’s room for all of it.
I disagree. There’s no room for inaccessible websites. You don’t have to trade off anything. You can have both artistic expression and accessibility at the same time. For example, the website can make sure that it’s compatible with the browsers’ reader views. Then users can switch to reader view to read the text in simple black and white.
It is accessible - it matches standards and is available in text-only browsers.
The question is, can it be considered accessible under legal standards (i.e. US ADA or the EU EEA, which is slated to come into final effect in 2025)?
In general, courts tend to follow not just the letter of the law but also the intent, so it's better to go on the safer side.
In general, courts tend to follow not just the letter of the law but also the intent, so it's better to go on the safer side.
I disagree. A website that induces eyestrain and headaches in some people is not fully accessible, unless the user has an easy way to switch to a simpler design. Browsers have reader modes, but the website in question is not compatible with them.
As someone who suffers from strong eyestrain issues, I strongly disagree.
There are an infinite number of possible disabilities. Most disabled people already have tools to accommodate.
If you can't see little things, you can zoom. If you have issue with poor contrasts, you can configure your display and/or your browser and/or your OS. If you can't see anything, you can use screen readers. If you have issues with low contrasts, you configure your computer or your browser to override contrasts.
Being "accessible" doesn't mean that your website have to think about every possible disability and that you have to provide a solution. It means that you use decent defaults styles but above all, it means that your website continues to function when it's degraded by the user agent.
Someone with eyestrain issues will not hate you because you made a bad color choice for his disability. But he will probably hate you if him changing the colors or the zooming ratio renders your website unusable.
edit : Also I have strong issues with contrasts due to amblyopia + astigmatism and this page was a pleasure to read. Black on light gray with slight font shadow is exactly what my eyes need.
There are an infinite number of possible disabilities. Most disabled people already have tools to accommodate.
If you can't see little things, you can zoom. If you have issue with poor contrasts, you can configure your display and/or your browser and/or your OS. If you can't see anything, you can use screen readers. If you have issues with low contrasts, you configure your computer or your browser to override contrasts.
Being "accessible" doesn't mean that your website have to think about every possible disability and that you have to provide a solution. It means that you use decent defaults styles but above all, it means that your website continues to function when it's degraded by the user agent.
Someone with eyestrain issues will not hate you because you made a bad color choice for his disability. But he will probably hate you if him changing the colors or the zooming ratio renders your website unusable.
edit : Also I have strong issues with contrasts due to amblyopia + astigmatism and this page was a pleasure to read. Black on light gray with slight font shadow is exactly what my eyes need.
How can a user with eyestrain issues change the colors of a website?
It depends on your own issue but :
- https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/font-contrast-fi...
- https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/darkreader
Or anything that can change or override the default browser style-sheet. Be it yourself if you are technical savvy enough or a tool.
It can also just be your monitor settings if it suits you.
- https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/font-contrast-fi...
- https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/darkreader
Or anything that can change or override the default browser style-sheet. Be it yourself if you are technical savvy enough or a tool.
It can also just be your monitor settings if it suits you.
I’m not sure that such browser extensions resolve websites from accommodating users with eyestrain/headaches. At the very least, a website with a shrill design should be compatible with the browsers’ reader modes, and the website in question isn’t.
The tone of the website has a very tongue-in-cheek tone to me. Taking it seriously is like doing journalism research using The Onion.
How does a person who can’t read the text because of their health issues know that it’s tongue in cheek?
Should the vast majority of the world who do not have those health issues be deprived of its glory, because there is a minority who - very sadly and unfortunately for them - cannot look at it? Should Picasso not have bothered painting since some people are blind? Should Tolstoy not have written War and Peace because some people do not have the reading level to cope with such a complex book? Should Maria Callas not have sung so beautifully because the deaf would never be able to hear her?
If you are there for the content and not the design, then it works fine with a browser like Lynx. Thus all the content is entirely accessible.
If you are there for the content and not the design, then it works fine with a browser like Lynx. Thus all the content is entirely accessible.
A website can be designed so that it adapts to the user’s needs. For example, there exist CSS media features that allow websites to honor the user’s preferences for color scheme, reduced motion, and increased contrast, among others.
https://w3c.github.io/csswg-drafts/mediaqueries-5/#mf-user-p...
The website can both have a shrill design and be accessible at the same time.
https://w3c.github.io/csswg-drafts/mediaqueries-5/#mf-user-p...
The website can both have a shrill design and be accessible at the same time.
Can you give me a concrete example of somebody who is unable to access the content, albeit using Lynx or with settings changes to Firefox?
(Copy-pasted from other comment:) The author of that website claims that they’ve seen multiple comments that complain about headaches and eyestrain. This is the first item in the FAQ, which suggests that it’s one of the most common complaints.
No. They are sarcastically saying that people making those complaints are doing so figuratively, not literally. Find one person who has genuinely suffered a surprise headache after looking at this site and you’ll have a stronger argument.
Accessibility doesn’t mean everything should be available to everybody at all times. That would be universal direct accessibility, which is impossible. Those without the internet or computer access cannot use a grocery website, but the grocery store is still open, and thus the groceries are still indirectly accessible. Providing an elevator as well as stairs means the 2nd floor is universally accessible, even though some cannot use the stairs.
Here, the content is provided by default with an unusual design. That design is part of their brand experience, which is why it has been posted. Some people cannot view through that experience, but they can still reasonably access the content using assistive technology. Thus the website is indirectly accessible.
Remove the design and you make the experience inaccessible to me. These are trade offs, not absolutes.
Accessibility doesn’t mean everything should be available to everybody at all times. That would be universal direct accessibility, which is impossible. Those without the internet or computer access cannot use a grocery website, but the grocery store is still open, and thus the groceries are still indirectly accessible. Providing an elevator as well as stairs means the 2nd floor is universally accessible, even though some cannot use the stairs.
Here, the content is provided by default with an unusual design. That design is part of their brand experience, which is why it has been posted. Some people cannot view through that experience, but they can still reasonably access the content using assistive technology. Thus the website is indirectly accessible.
Remove the design and you make the experience inaccessible to me. These are trade offs, not absolutes.
> people making those complaints are doing so figuratively, not literally
You’re assuming. It’s probably not a good idea to base one’s website’s accessibility strategy on such assumptions. Headaches and eyestrain are a real problem for many people. For example, people turn on dark mode because they have trouble looking at white backgrounds late at night or early in the morning. The same rule probably applies to bright colors.
> Remove the design and you make the experience inaccessible to me. These are trade offs, not absolutes.
I don’t think trade-offs are necessary. The website can have a shrill design and be accessible at the same time. For example, if the website was compatible with the browsers’ reader modes, then users could view the site in a simple black and white design.
You’re assuming. It’s probably not a good idea to base one’s website’s accessibility strategy on such assumptions. Headaches and eyestrain are a real problem for many people. For example, people turn on dark mode because they have trouble looking at white backgrounds late at night or early in the morning. The same rule probably applies to bright colors.
> Remove the design and you make the experience inaccessible to me. These are trade offs, not absolutes.
I don’t think trade-offs are necessary. The website can have a shrill design and be accessible at the same time. For example, if the website was compatible with the browsers’ reader modes, then users could view the site in a simple black and white design.
This is a pretty pointless conversation.
They're going to keep the design. I'm going to be happy about that. You're not.
They're going to keep the design. I'm going to be happy about that. You're not.
> Should the vast majority of the world who do not have those health issues be deprived of its glory, because there is a minority who - very sadly and unfortunately for them - cannot look at it?
FWIW, the law says yes. And the law is right, IMO: we should not deprive a minority of their rights just because the majority is fine with the status quo.
And everyone will become disabled if they don't die young. Eyesight in particular is pretty much guaranteed to decline with age.
FWIW, the law says yes. And the law is right, IMO: we should not deprive a minority of their rights just because the majority is fine with the status quo.
And everyone will become disabled if they don't die young. Eyesight in particular is pretty much guaranteed to decline with age.
Which law? Show me.
They may be referring to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act [1], which:
> ...requires federal agencies and any institution that receives federal funding to make electronic technology and information equally accessible for individuals with disabilities. This means that an organization's website must have all features just as accessible for individuals with disabilities as these features are for individuals without disabilities. For example, it must be equally easy for an individual with a disability to find information about an organization's services on their website as it is for non-disabled individuals to access this information.
This is an American law, but obviously other countries may have their own equivalents.
1. https://acs-web.com/digital-marketing-lexicon/section-508-of...
> ...requires federal agencies and any institution that receives federal funding to make electronic technology and information equally accessible for individuals with disabilities. This means that an organization's website must have all features just as accessible for individuals with disabilities as these features are for individuals without disabilities. For example, it must be equally easy for an individual with a disability to find information about an organization's services on their website as it is for non-disabled individuals to access this information.
This is an American law, but obviously other countries may have their own equivalents.
1. https://acs-web.com/digital-marketing-lexicon/section-508-of...
> federal agencies and any institution that receives federal funding
I don't think that website is either a US federal agency or receives any US federal funding.
I don't think that website is either a US federal agency or receives any US federal funding.
> I don't think that website is either a US federal agency or receives any US federal funding.
IMHO it's hard to tell either way, because their website wasn't designed with ease-of-use in mind.
That said, here's some facts I was able to gather on their business:
> Whilst IT research remains our primary focus, we now offer executive high-end commercial IT services to organisations with unique problems to solve.
> ...we also have a large body of knowledge of older systems, many of which have now gone full-circle and fallen into disuse, technology that has been abandoned and forgotten. We occasionally do projects involving those, especially when nobody else seems to remember how they worked. Our knowledge-base includes legacy programming languages such as Fortran, data conversion from obscure file formats, and even assembly language coding on various platforms.
Based on these quotes, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that they have clients in government.
IMHO it's hard to tell either way, because their website wasn't designed with ease-of-use in mind.
That said, here's some facts I was able to gather on their business:
> Whilst IT research remains our primary focus, we now offer executive high-end commercial IT services to organisations with unique problems to solve.
> ...we also have a large body of knowledge of older systems, many of which have now gone full-circle and fallen into disuse, technology that has been abandoned and forgotten. We occasionally do projects involving those, especially when nobody else seems to remember how they worked. Our knowledge-base includes legacy programming languages such as Fortran, data conversion from obscure file formats, and even assembly language coding on various platforms.
Based on these quotes, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that they have clients in government.
OK, your comment here made me gird my loins and actually put up with reading the rest of their website.
Anything is possible, I suppose, but everything I've seen on that site leads me to think it's not a company at all, but a personal hobbyist's website, or perhaps that of a hobbyist club.
Anything is possible, I suppose, but everything I've seen on that site leads me to think it's not a company at all, but a personal hobbyist's website, or perhaps that of a hobbyist club.
Oh for sure, I definitely also get "hobbyist" vibes from this. I'm not in this thread to persuade anyone that this is a federal contractor's corporate page. My original comment was, more than anything, an attempt to answer the question "Which law?"
The Americans with Disabilities Act.
From ada.gov:
> The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in everyday activities.
And specific to web sites:
https://www.ada.gov/resources/web-guidance/
From ada.gov:
> The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in everyday activities.
And specific to web sites:
https://www.ada.gov/resources/web-guidance/
Where is the discrimination here?
> Where is the discrimination here?
Restating the post I originally responded to:
> Should the vast majority of the world who do not have those health issues be deprived of its glory, because there is a minority who - very sadly and unfortunately for them - cannot look at it?
The key words from the comment are: "cannot look at it"
For comparison, some other similar discriminatory phrases from history: "cannot swim in it", "cannot drink from it", "cannot ride on it", "cannot enter it", "cannot buy it"
Restating the post I originally responded to:
> Should the vast majority of the world who do not have those health issues be deprived of its glory, because there is a minority who - very sadly and unfortunately for them - cannot look at it?
The key words from the comment are: "cannot look at it"
For comparison, some other similar discriminatory phrases from history: "cannot swim in it", "cannot drink from it", "cannot ride on it", "cannot enter it", "cannot buy it"
So because they cannot look at the design, that's discrimination, even if they _are_ able to access the content itself? Why don't you take legal action against them?
> even if they _are_ able to access the content itself?
Just as a non-wheelchair accessible store is an example of discrimination, even if someone in a wheelchair could conceivably gain access to it by dragging themselves up the steps with their arms.
> Why don't you take legal action against them?
Because I'd honestly rather they do the right thing for the right reasons. Lawsuits should be a means of last resort.
And honestly, I'm not rich enough to fund a legal campaign. I'll leave that to someone with more money than I.
Just as a non-wheelchair accessible store is an example of discrimination, even if someone in a wheelchair could conceivably gain access to it by dragging themselves up the steps with their arms.
> Why don't you take legal action against them?
Because I'd honestly rather they do the right thing for the right reasons. Lawsuits should be a means of last resort.
And honestly, I'm not rich enough to fund a legal campaign. I'll leave that to someone with more money than I.
If the user can use reasonable measures (such as different settings, or an alternative browser) to access the content, that's not at all the same as asking a wheelchair user to drag themselves up the stairs.
There is absolutely no legal requirement to either spend a fortune on designers, or reduce your website to some boring text-only mush, in the name of "accessibility". The website in question is accessible via a screen-reader, but even if it wasn't, they are not in a market where broad accessibility would be considered a legal requirement. If that were the case, half the websites on the internet would be taken offline.
If you did take this to court, you would lose.
There is absolutely no legal requirement to either spend a fortune on designers, or reduce your website to some boring text-only mush, in the name of "accessibility". The website in question is accessible via a screen-reader, but even if it wasn't, they are not in a market where broad accessibility would be considered a legal requirement. If that were the case, half the websites on the internet would be taken offline.
If you did take this to court, you would lose.
Do you actually know someone who can't read the text, or are you concern trolling?
Since you quoted and responded to it, it seems you are in agreement with the site authors. There are 10 themes. do all of them make any one person's eyes bleed?
Since you quoted and responded to it, it seems you are in agreement with the site authors. There are 10 themes. do all of them make any one person's eyes bleed?
> Do you actually know someone who can't read the text, or are you concern trolling?
The author of that website claims that they’ve seen multiple comments that complain about headaches and eyestrain. This is the first item in the FAQ, which suggests that it’s one of the most common complaints.
> There are 10 themes. do all of them make any one person's eyes bleed?
The theme selector is at the bottom of the page. It’s unlikely that a person who gets a headache/eyestrain from the design will find it in time.
The author of that website claims that they’ve seen multiple comments that complain about headaches and eyestrain. This is the first item in the FAQ, which suggests that it’s one of the most common complaints.
> There are 10 themes. do all of them make any one person's eyes bleed?
The theme selector is at the bottom of the page. It’s unlikely that a person who gets a headache/eyestrain from the design will find it in time.
So the answer is no, you don't know anyone who can't read the text.
People post all kind of things online, especially hyperbole. As one of the other FAQ questions notes a lot of people also complain about their eyes bleeding, but this has never actually happened.
People post all kind of things online, especially hyperbole. As one of the other FAQ questions notes a lot of people also complain about their eyes bleeding, but this has never actually happened.
When users complain about headaches and eyestrain, it’s probably better to take them seriously.
I once worked at a place where we shifted some content from a two column layout to three columns. We had users telling us it was literally giving them headaches and making them feel ill. This despite the fact that it now looked basically like the rest of our content. You absolutely cannot take all user complaints seriously.
Please rewrite your comments. I'm finding them quite offending.
Almost everything posted online is hyperbole
The 1980s theme was the only one I could stand, and the 1990s theme appears to be the same as the Tropical Days theme. All the ones with the background are essentially unusable for me.
It's their site, they can do whatever they want, but it's a bit silly to act like there's something wrong with anyone who has a problem with it. For example, in the default theme the yellow text (#FFFF00) with the pink highlight (#FF00FF) fails WCAG contrast requirements across the board.
Maybe the really don't care whether everyone has an easy time reading their site or not, and that's their choice, but I find the snark about it off-putting. It's not difficult to design a site that's easy for everyone to read.
> But anyway, most of the material published on our research website is also available in gemtext format via our gemini server.
Might be the only way I'd read this site.