The negative impact of mobile-first web design on desktop(nngroup.com)
nngroup.com
The negative impact of mobile-first web design on desktop
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/content-dispersion/
503 comments
I'm struggling to understand from your explanation what is this "hinternet".
The hard-to-use internet of the 90s, centered around IRC and Usenet? The seedy parts of the 90s internet with illegal content hosted on free hosts? Because you say today's internet is like that, and I don't see any comparison at all however I look at it.
How is the 90s Internet (forums, IRC, Viagra spam and goatse) anything like the modern sterilized version full of dark patterns in the hands of a dozen megacorps?
The hard-to-use internet of the 90s, centered around IRC and Usenet? The seedy parts of the 90s internet with illegal content hosted on free hosts? Because you say today's internet is like that, and I don't see any comparison at all however I look at it.
How is the 90s Internet (forums, IRC, Viagra spam and goatse) anything like the modern sterilized version full of dark patterns in the hands of a dozen megacorps?
By way of analogy, 90's internet was like exploring a town where you could wander around and check things out, and some open lots had billboards with ads on their property. Every property had a list of other properties that you might want to also check out.
Current internet (hinternet?) is like walking through the same town but now there are fences around everything and posts with security cameras at every property boundary. When visiting a property now you are required to show your face and maybe ID, and also have to sign up to get a rewards card. When visiting a property you also have people with clipboards following you around and taking notes which they pass to people with clipboards at other properties.
Current internet (hinternet?) is like walking through the same town but now there are fences around everything and posts with security cameras at every property boundary. When visiting a property now you are required to show your face and maybe ID, and also have to sign up to get a rewards card. When visiting a property you also have people with clipboards following you around and taking notes which they pass to people with clipboards at other properties.
> How is the 90s Internet (forums, IRC, Viagra spam and goatse) anything like the modern sterilized version full of dark patterns in the hands of a dozen megacorps?
The hinternet was the Viagra spam and goatse part. The modern, sterilized version is exactly that - continuous abuse and exploitation. Just with a fig leaf of legitimacy.
EDIT: perhaps a better distinction would be this: O'Brien's Internet was/is that which comes from focusing on benefit for the user (be it utility or entertainment). The hinternet is that which comes from focusing on making money. Now, focusing on utility does not preclude commerce - in fact, the most basic and honest way of making money is by exchange for something of value. Focus on value provided includes figuring out how to provide it sustainably. In contrast, focusing on making money does, in practice, detract from making things good, as fraud and abuse have much better ROI.
The hinternet was the Viagra spam and goatse part. The modern, sterilized version is exactly that - continuous abuse and exploitation. Just with a fig leaf of legitimacy.
EDIT: perhaps a better distinction would be this: O'Brien's Internet was/is that which comes from focusing on benefit for the user (be it utility or entertainment). The hinternet is that which comes from focusing on making money. Now, focusing on utility does not preclude commerce - in fact, the most basic and honest way of making money is by exchange for something of value. Focus on value provided includes figuring out how to provide it sustainably. In contrast, focusing on making money does, in practice, detract from making things good, as fraud and abuse have much better ROI.
From what I gather from Oblomovka[1] [and based on my own memory of this period]:
It was a place where the primary early users of the Internet did not frequent, but could be something an ordinary person would be exposed to out of necessity. (Think, maybe some service that lets one send faxes via email; notably you'd need to create an account and spend money.) But, at some point, this reversed, and ordinary use cases dominate - online banking, e-commerce, school - such that even finding the original sort of content that comprised most of the Internet can be very difficult.[2]
As an example, cooking recipe websites in the early Internet contained cooking recipes - no stories, no SEO optimization - and then sometimes at the bottom of the page participated in some sort of link exchange with other recipe websites and perhaps a page hit counter. This was an Internet for the technologist, and one might find their way there from a BBS, IRC, email, word of mouth, or early search engines that naively indexed keywords, or you know, by surfing a webring. These sites seldom existed for any sort of commercial gain and were often a hobby project.
Today you could reasonably expect to find your way to a cooking recipe site via a search engine where each recipe has been SEO optimized with a nonsense story and you might be prompted to log in with Google or create an account to view the actual recipe. The target audience are the people who are the norm and would have been those visiting the hinternet two decades ago, out of necessity [e.g., pay to send a fax via email], but today they are just normal people performing normal activities.
Something like today's network of sites two decades ago would be hinterlands by the blog's definition - not frequented[2]. Today, it is the norm.
1. two competing definitions, circa 2001-03: https://www.oblomovka.com/wp/2003/04/16/hinternet-fallout/
2. it's been decided to call this sort of genuine content "Small Web" https://kagi.com/smallweb
X. the competing definition of hinternet, which I also like (search "hinternet"): http://thegestalt.org/simon/cluetrain.html
It was a place where the primary early users of the Internet did not frequent, but could be something an ordinary person would be exposed to out of necessity. (Think, maybe some service that lets one send faxes via email; notably you'd need to create an account and spend money.) But, at some point, this reversed, and ordinary use cases dominate - online banking, e-commerce, school - such that even finding the original sort of content that comprised most of the Internet can be very difficult.[2]
As an example, cooking recipe websites in the early Internet contained cooking recipes - no stories, no SEO optimization - and then sometimes at the bottom of the page participated in some sort of link exchange with other recipe websites and perhaps a page hit counter. This was an Internet for the technologist, and one might find their way there from a BBS, IRC, email, word of mouth, or early search engines that naively indexed keywords, or you know, by surfing a webring. These sites seldom existed for any sort of commercial gain and were often a hobby project.
Today you could reasonably expect to find your way to a cooking recipe site via a search engine where each recipe has been SEO optimized with a nonsense story and you might be prompted to log in with Google or create an account to view the actual recipe. The target audience are the people who are the norm and would have been those visiting the hinternet two decades ago, out of necessity [e.g., pay to send a fax via email], but today they are just normal people performing normal activities.
Something like today's network of sites two decades ago would be hinterlands by the blog's definition - not frequented[2]. Today, it is the norm.
1. two competing definitions, circa 2001-03: https://www.oblomovka.com/wp/2003/04/16/hinternet-fallout/
2. it's been decided to call this sort of genuine content "Small Web" https://kagi.com/smallweb
X. the competing definition of hinternet, which I also like (search "hinternet"): http://thegestalt.org/simon/cluetrain.html
There were also tech sites that reviewed computer hardware in writing. Sometimes with pictures. There were websites with video game walkthroughs - also in text, with pictures! There were websites with silly things people wrote about, and funny stories, and the usual tinfoil hat stuff. But the tinfoil hat stuff was secluded away on a tinfoil webring on angelfire.
There were tons of stores. Usually the more legit ones partnered with yahoo shopping or whatever. I remember buying Pokemon Yellow from a video game store based out of Canada lol. I think it was called dragon.ca? There were TONS of places. Some would take a week to ship but you usually got your stuff. :D
IRC had something for everyone. Those networks had tens of thousands of people online at any given time, talking about everything from tech to trash (literally) lol.
There were also web directories. As I recall, google started off using one of those as a source.
There was also stuff like AOL that had its own little ecosystem of corporate-sponsored stuff.
There were tons of stores. Usually the more legit ones partnered with yahoo shopping or whatever. I remember buying Pokemon Yellow from a video game store based out of Canada lol. I think it was called dragon.ca? There were TONS of places. Some would take a week to ship but you usually got your stuff. :D
IRC had something for everyone. Those networks had tens of thousands of people online at any given time, talking about everything from tech to trash (literally) lol.
There were also web directories. As I recall, google started off using one of those as a source.
There was also stuff like AOL that had its own little ecosystem of corporate-sponsored stuff.
All of that still exists, just in reduced numbers. Browse Neocities. Or search Wiby.me
I just went to Google and searched “recipes”. The top link is allrecipes.com, where the homepage leads me to numerous recipes. No stories.
It absolutely exists for commercial gain. It’s also a lot more useful than what existed 30 years ago.
It absolutely exists for commercial gain. It’s also a lot more useful than what existed 30 years ago.
From the context, I assume it is a pun on hinterland as borrowed into English. Here, it is mostly synonymous with backwoods. The hinterland may sound more literary than folksy, or may emphasize an unexplored or less navigable zone rather than merely natural or undeveloped.
I wonder what the original blogger really meant by it. The discussion here seems to be focusing on either an axis of academic vs commercial or high culture vs pop culture, or maybe conflating the two. This isn't really about the level of development nor navigability but some other more abstract quality or purpose.
The developed land could hold a grand cathedral, a brutalist housing block, or a luxurious department store. The hinterland could have a frontier mission, a rustic cabin, or a trading post.
I wonder what the original blogger really meant by it. The discussion here seems to be focusing on either an axis of academic vs commercial or high culture vs pop culture, or maybe conflating the two. This isn't really about the level of development nor navigability but some other more abstract quality or purpose.
The developed land could hold a grand cathedral, a brutalist housing block, or a luxurious department store. The hinterland could have a frontier mission, a rustic cabin, or a trading post.
danny's meaning didn't have this romantic component. it was specifically "bad internet as experienced by non-technologically sophisticated users in the early 2000s", as opposed to the "wild internet". the example that he gives is something like spamassassin with naive bayesian filter, which meant that power users at that point in time "won" against spam, while naive users were still getting tons of spam in their inboxes. I personally always thought that it's play on "hinder net".
Can you expand on "hard-to-use internet of the 90s"? Beause I honestly think it is in most ways harder to use nowadays.
you had to read stuff
It is often described as such. I was 13 when I got my first dial-up. With all the free time and excitement I had, it was very easy for me to get into, and certainly more fun than whatever today's internet is.
So to be honest, I do not understand the common slander and mischaracterization of the utterly vibrant pre-2000s Internet, in all its beauty and awfulness.
So to be honest, I do not understand the common slander and mischaracterization of the utterly vibrant pre-2000s Internet, in all its beauty and awfulness.
> How is the 90s Internet (forums, IRC, Viagra spam and goatse)
That wasn't at all the internet I had in the 90s. I know that part of it existed, but there were really great parts, too.
That wasn't at all the internet I had in the 90s. I know that part of it existed, but there were really great parts, too.
Certainly. Forums, IRC and personal websites made the 90s Internet more fun to explore than anything else we have today.
I had a group of 14 year old friends on a public IRC channel, before cat-fishing, bots and nonces became the norm. Met my first (real life) girlfriend there. I learned about the magic world of OSDev browsing webrings. So many personal websites of people talking about their micro OS. Countless forums for all the interests a teenage boy could ever desire.
The internet felt HUGE. No one could possibly see a thousandths of it in their lifetime. And then it started to shrink and shrink...
I had a group of 14 year old friends on a public IRC channel, before cat-fishing, bots and nonces became the norm. Met my first (real life) girlfriend there. I learned about the magic world of OSDev browsing webrings. So many personal websites of people talking about their micro OS. Countless forums for all the interests a teenage boy could ever desire.
The internet felt HUGE. No one could possibly see a thousandths of it in their lifetime. And then it started to shrink and shrink...
think of it from a subjective experience of somebody who was "from the internet" in the early 2000s (because that's when Danny coined the term):
mIRC made irc easy, jabber was already a thing, you're have a bunch of bookmarks (in non-monetized, non-ad supported online services) to high quality content, you're posting on forums, you get your news from blogs of intelligent people, etc. etc. the internet you're interacting with is great!
alas you have technologically unsophisticated users joining in and what they are experiencing is "hinternet": banners everywhere (we had adblockers), spam all the time (we had spamassassin, and our host Paul graham just invented naive bayesian spam filtering, which at least early on worked spectacularly), phishing and trickery (the computer told me to put my credit card, or similar). it's a miserable broken experience, that potentially results in your information or money being stolen, and all kinds of other indignities.
I'm saying that modern internet is more like a hinternet of old than it is anything else, but we are all forced do t use it.
mIRC made irc easy, jabber was already a thing, you're have a bunch of bookmarks (in non-monetized, non-ad supported online services) to high quality content, you're posting on forums, you get your news from blogs of intelligent people, etc. etc. the internet you're interacting with is great!
alas you have technologically unsophisticated users joining in and what they are experiencing is "hinternet": banners everywhere (we had adblockers), spam all the time (we had spamassassin, and our host Paul graham just invented naive bayesian spam filtering, which at least early on worked spectacularly), phishing and trickery (the computer told me to put my credit card, or similar). it's a miserable broken experience, that potentially results in your information or money being stolen, and all kinds of other indignities.
I'm saying that modern internet is more like a hinternet of old than it is anything else, but we are all forced do t use it.
This is an interesting thing. Honestly can't remember the last time I saw an ad or easy phishing thing. Like obv in your junk mail but thats literally the extent of my exposure to it, everything else is curated and "good" or probably aligns with your concept of the priveleged netizens/areas even though Im poor as hell. Knowledge wise I suppose I rich so there's that but there's also seems like a tradgedy of the commons type situation that depends on all the tech-illiterates to be the meat shields for advertising and paying for things like YouTube
> You can't log in into irs without using id.me, a digital wallet and identity management platform, that sells you things.
Wow, I just assumed it was some kind of auth flow the government runs themselves and never did any research
Wow, I just assumed it was some kind of auth flow the government runs themselves and never did any research
The US government loves outsourcing technical problems and hates developing that stuff in-house. Even for things we'd assume, naively, to be a core competency like "identifying a citizen."
It's how we ended up in a world where some 70% of all retail transaction is now fundamentally brokered via private institutions using not-real-money (in the sense that credit on a credit card is "numbers the private institution tracks themselves" until the cash clears, and most cards have a loyalty discount program that sums up to the dollars spent on the credit card having different value than bare cash), in spite of the fact that control of and guarantees for the monetary system are something a government should have as a core competency. So on 70% of transactions, Americans get nickel-end-dimed by private institutions for basic commerce (on top of government taxes; the private tax atop the public tax).
It's how we ended up in a world where some 70% of all retail transaction is now fundamentally brokered via private institutions using not-real-money (in the sense that credit on a credit card is "numbers the private institution tracks themselves" until the cash clears, and most cards have a loyalty discount program that sums up to the dollars spent on the credit card having different value than bare cash), in spite of the fact that control of and guarantees for the monetary system are something a government should have as a core competency. So on 70% of transactions, Americans get nickel-end-dimed by private institutions for basic commerce (on top of government taxes; the private tax atop the public tax).
No congressperson ever got rich from the government doing things in-house.
Fix that aspect and the situation will improve significantly.
Fix that aspect and the situation will improve significantly.
Arguably, they did in the past - and the current situation is an immune (over)reaction to that. Outsourcing is easier than figuring out how to get something done while navigating around all the regulations and CYA measures, so that things look fair to the people (otherwise they'll make a ruckus), and/or can't be easily portrayed as unfair by your political enemies (who will try to trick the people into making a ruckus).
>The US government loves outsourcing technical problems and hates developing that stuff in-house.
No, no they don't. They would love to build in-house, but are constrained in what salary ranges they can offer.
The other challenge US government faces is that they continuously get their chain yanked by congress. I've read many stories of (corporate) management incompetence over the years, but they mostly pale in relation to the ability of congress to completely change priorities and goals every 6-12 months.
Even the most disfunctional corporation has some kind of force/attraction towards having a product line with an outward semblance of consistency and cohesion.
No, no they don't. They would love to build in-house, but are constrained in what salary ranges they can offer.
The other challenge US government faces is that they continuously get their chain yanked by congress. I've read many stories of (corporate) management incompetence over the years, but they mostly pale in relation to the ability of congress to completely change priorities and goals every 6-12 months.
Even the most disfunctional corporation has some kind of force/attraction towards having a product line with an outward semblance of consistency and cohesion.
login.gov is the government's (quite fantastic) auth flow - id.me is a private one that the IRS contracted. I wish there were a rule that all online government services needed to use login.gov, but alas it's optional.
They’re supposedly working on it [1] but I don’t have any sense of whether they’re likely to succeed. In particular, the IRS is beginning to onboard to login.gov and the goal is to be fully migrated away from ID.me at some point.
[1] https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/02/irs-...
[1] https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2022/02/irs-...
it's quite cyberpunk, in a dystopian sense, I don't think most people realize. it can of course be framed as benign and I'm sure there are protective policies in place. but you know, if you take a sweeping look from a distance, the fact that the login system for government website, which every single citizen might at any point be forced to interact with, has a profile option (enabled by default) to "receive emails featuring ID.me offers and discounts" seems quite insane to me.
It’s basically what computer illiterates (which is growing, not declining because of mobile use) endure on windows desktop computers. At some time they’ve clicked the wrong link, managed to install a toolbar in their browser - and slowly it’s been infested with random dark patterns. I see it fairly frequently when relatives call me about computer issues.
This is the difference between building a website as an experiment for an untested audience and running a modern business. The simple reason most websites are optimized for mobile is because most users are on mobile. And the reason there are ads and email acquisition forms is because they are worth something to businesses. Text-only, ad-free, non-responsive text content isn't worth much.
But they all suck on mobile!
Using the internet on a phone is a terrible experience. Websites take forever to load, they randomly resize things, they add pointless headers and footers to the limited space, they move the focus around at random etc.
You know how websites sometimes have that button that scrolls you back to the top near the bottom right? Those buttons tell me that the people making the website never use phones themselves. The amount of times I've found that button helpful vs the amount of times that I've hit it by accident while scrolling is so small that the entire thing feels like a cruel joke. Mobile websites are full of these kinds of UI patterns.
HN is actually one of the few nice to use websites on a phone because it doesn't try to do all of these things. On reddit you're better off using the old desktop view than any of the mobile views. Same for websites like YouTube.
Google doesn't even have parity in functionality between the mobile and desktop websites. On desktop you can filter results between arbitrary time stamps. On mobile you can only pick between "past hour, past 24 hours, past week, past month or past 12 months".
There are a million small things like that that are wrong with mobile websites. They ruin the experience.
Using the internet on a phone is a terrible experience. Websites take forever to load, they randomly resize things, they add pointless headers and footers to the limited space, they move the focus around at random etc.
You know how websites sometimes have that button that scrolls you back to the top near the bottom right? Those buttons tell me that the people making the website never use phones themselves. The amount of times I've found that button helpful vs the amount of times that I've hit it by accident while scrolling is so small that the entire thing feels like a cruel joke. Mobile websites are full of these kinds of UI patterns.
HN is actually one of the few nice to use websites on a phone because it doesn't try to do all of these things. On reddit you're better off using the old desktop view than any of the mobile views. Same for websites like YouTube.
Google doesn't even have parity in functionality between the mobile and desktop websites. On desktop you can filter results between arbitrary time stamps. On mobile you can only pick between "past hour, past 24 hours, past week, past month or past 12 months".
There are a million small things like that that are wrong with mobile websites. They ruin the experience.
Sure, anyone can screwup, I'm just saying "mobile first" is valid business strategy. A lot of the annoying things like ads and whatever are just never not going to be annoying. It's kinda their raison d'etre. Things like date filtering on google results probably get so little usage there's no incentive to make them fully available. Very few apps are built to optimize utility, they're built to optimize revenue.
Try Firefox with ublock on mobile
I'm curious about this type of response. it sort of implies that I don't know why things have changed the way they did. the causality is implicitly in the original also. we have a lot of mobile first websites, because most people use phones to access internet. and all the bad things happen on the internet have reasons behind them like that, because it's an emergent dynamic process. emails are to be collected, for they are a valuable tool in sales pipeline. things buzz and blink because it's easy to hack human attention system, which is also why casinos do it. but that's kind of, like, not what the comment is about.
You’re lucky if it works with an iPad and that it doesn’t make you sign your life away to Verizon or T-Mobile the ur-Carrier (sic).
I alway get voted down when I use words like “phonish” or “phonishness” but I feel that smartphones made life worse not better and made people serve computers than the other way around. Here’s to the next platform.
I alway get voted down when I use words like “phonish” or “phonishness” but I feel that smartphones made life worse not better and made people serve computers than the other way around. Here’s to the next platform.
This "hinternet" is a cool concept, but there's something missing from
its account.
On one side we have the cultured elites of academia, the military and government - as rightful founders.
On the other, the unwashed masses, immigrants of the Eternal September. Eventually this hoi polloi of hucksters, chancers and grifters became naturalised as the businesses and bankers in the new world.
The dotcom era is a colonisation story and the elites are the aboriginal natives driven off their own land. It sure fits a "woke" narrative.
But what's missing from this fairy-tale is the actual real people.
The truth is, dotcom, Web2.0 and the empire building between 1997 and about 2010 was still a marginal affair, where existing money and power moved into the internet, along with a handful of rugged "entrepreneurs" (as we like to call ourselves around here).
The 99% remained spectators caught between the Scylla and Charibdes, and now they are corralled into ranches, all lovingly watched over...
The potential for a "people's internet" still remains, but we have not solved many (indeed any) of the classical problems of freeloaders, tragedy of the commons.... and at this point I think "Web 3.0 and blockchain web" is dead (?)
A good start to moving things forward to an internet that is once again public, high-quality and large might be looking more closely at the history/narrative of the internet and who the real stakeholders are.
On one side we have the cultured elites of academia, the military and government - as rightful founders.
On the other, the unwashed masses, immigrants of the Eternal September. Eventually this hoi polloi of hucksters, chancers and grifters became naturalised as the businesses and bankers in the new world.
The dotcom era is a colonisation story and the elites are the aboriginal natives driven off their own land. It sure fits a "woke" narrative.
But what's missing from this fairy-tale is the actual real people.
The truth is, dotcom, Web2.0 and the empire building between 1997 and about 2010 was still a marginal affair, where existing money and power moved into the internet, along with a handful of rugged "entrepreneurs" (as we like to call ourselves around here).
The 99% remained spectators caught between the Scylla and Charibdes, and now they are corralled into ranches, all lovingly watched over...
The potential for a "people's internet" still remains, but we have not solved many (indeed any) of the classical problems of freeloaders, tragedy of the commons.... and at this point I think "Web 3.0 and blockchain web" is dead (?)
A good start to moving things forward to an internet that is once again public, high-quality and large might be looking more closely at the history/narrative of the internet and who the real stakeholders are.
The people have their Internet already. They like Netflix, they like Amazon Prime, they love TikTok, they like Instagram, they like Pinterest, they like their various chat apps, they like their online gaming, and so on.
That is all that they want. Along with some decent ecommerce for shopping and safe, easy to use mobile banking.
There's nothing magical about it, and there never will be. They don't want fluffy magical bullshit. They already have most of what they want and there's nothing grandiose about it, it's overwhelmingly just quasi-boring pedestrian entertainment and amusement to pass the time. That's what they wanted before the Internet, and it's what they naturally want with the Internet. It's because they're tired from their days, their 307 serious life problems (health, mortgage, bills, stress, job), and their exhausting children (that they love dearly of course).
No no no, the peoples Internet must be a vision of splendor! The masses want to spend all day creating extraordinary art, and thinking deeply about complex subjects they just educated themselves on! That's not reality, and it's not what the masses want at all. Not even remotely close.
They want a garbage pile of chaos like Reddit. Where they can insult people without getting punched in the face, and they can learn some tips about wood working other there, and they can look at photos of modded cars over in another sub, and they can go back to insulting someone over in another sub, and then they can watch a stream of rockets being fired at/from Gaza in another thread.
The peoples Internet is already here.
That is all that they want. Along with some decent ecommerce for shopping and safe, easy to use mobile banking.
There's nothing magical about it, and there never will be. They don't want fluffy magical bullshit. They already have most of what they want and there's nothing grandiose about it, it's overwhelmingly just quasi-boring pedestrian entertainment and amusement to pass the time. That's what they wanted before the Internet, and it's what they naturally want with the Internet. It's because they're tired from their days, their 307 serious life problems (health, mortgage, bills, stress, job), and their exhausting children (that they love dearly of course).
No no no, the peoples Internet must be a vision of splendor! The masses want to spend all day creating extraordinary art, and thinking deeply about complex subjects they just educated themselves on! That's not reality, and it's not what the masses want at all. Not even remotely close.
They want a garbage pile of chaos like Reddit. Where they can insult people without getting punched in the face, and they can learn some tips about wood working other there, and they can look at photos of modded cars over in another sub, and they can go back to insulting someone over in another sub, and then they can watch a stream of rockets being fired at/from Gaza in another thread.
The peoples Internet is already here.
There's a huge amount of truth in what you say. Hence I used the
pejorative "Hoi Polloi".
But you can probably tell I once worked for the BBC. And what might look like elitism (of the kind I wouldn't apologise for) is really hope for wider humanity in spite of the Rupert Murdock effect, in spite of a concerted 50 year assault on education, and in spite of the misappropriation of the internet as a giant firehose for diarrhoea. The West's self-devouring and terminal-stage enshitification is quite the spectacle.
So when we look at "the people" and say this or that is "what they want", something recoils inside me. Do we know that? A perpetual cycle where people know what they like and they like what they know is not a stasis or fact of the world but a precarious place of comfortable mediocrity we've come to be. A local minima. There are other places. Cultures have flourished. And sometimes they wane.
The Internet (big I) was more than just a lot of wires, it was an idea. Maybe some fragments of that idea are still alive, I don't know.
But you can probably tell I once worked for the BBC. And what might look like elitism (of the kind I wouldn't apologise for) is really hope for wider humanity in spite of the Rupert Murdock effect, in spite of a concerted 50 year assault on education, and in spite of the misappropriation of the internet as a giant firehose for diarrhoea. The West's self-devouring and terminal-stage enshitification is quite the spectacle.
So when we look at "the people" and say this or that is "what they want", something recoils inside me. Do we know that? A perpetual cycle where people know what they like and they like what they know is not a stasis or fact of the world but a precarious place of comfortable mediocrity we've come to be. A local minima. There are other places. Cultures have flourished. And sometimes they wane.
The Internet (big I) was more than just a lot of wires, it was an idea. Maybe some fragments of that idea are still alive, I don't know.
> So when we look at "the people" and say this or that is "what they want", something recoils inside me. Do we know that?
The famous (controversial) Indian teacher Osho had a saying on this: "Democracy. Government of the people, by the people, for the people...but the people are retarded."
The famous (controversial) Indian teacher Osho had a saying on this: "Democracy. Government of the people, by the people, for the people...but the people are retarded."
We often look down on "the people", but the masses have more wisdom than the elites, even if societal consensus can sometimes lead to terrible solutions to problems.
Democracy is nuanced, much like reality, and this bothers people.
Democracy is nuanced, much like reality, and this bothers people.
> the masses have more wisdom than the elites
I used to think this way also but in recent times I have become less sure. Maybe the easiest way to explain my thinking is to recall that line from the movie Men in Black: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky animals, and you know it."
Obviously the truth is way more complex than that but I really do doubt the wisdom of the crowds.
A different example might the guys who wrote up the Constitution of the United States. More people were illiterate than literate back in those days. The founders were a small elite, but they created a framework that has served millions of people for a few hundred years.
In any case, yes, democracy is nuanced. It is the best system despite its flaws. And to be frank, the real issue with democracy is that it's run by people...and hardly any of us walk on water. :)
I used to think this way also but in recent times I have become less sure. Maybe the easiest way to explain my thinking is to recall that line from the movie Men in Black: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky animals, and you know it."
Obviously the truth is way more complex than that but I really do doubt the wisdom of the crowds.
A different example might the guys who wrote up the Constitution of the United States. More people were illiterate than literate back in those days. The founders were a small elite, but they created a framework that has served millions of people for a few hundred years.
In any case, yes, democracy is nuanced. It is the best system despite its flaws. And to be frank, the real issue with democracy is that it's run by people...and hardly any of us walk on water. :)
Yeah, it's about how in a monarchy not only can things get way more rotten, but also transitions of power tend to be very bloody (and wasteful) affairs.
I agree, and my take is that the mass of people has, between them, much more "domain wisdom". Different groups have deep understanding of different things. Villagers understand small settlement dynamics; urban dwellers understand towns. People near the sea understand all things related to it; people in grasslands understand nuances of farming better than those in the mountains, etc.
The problem is, you have to reach relevant subgroups to access that wisdom - otherwise, when you're just polling the entire population on a specific topic, well... few subgroups are experts, but everyone has an opinion, so it averages down to "dumb, panicky animals".
The problem is, you have to reach relevant subgroups to access that wisdom - otherwise, when you're just polling the entire population on a specific topic, well... few subgroups are experts, but everyone has an opinion, so it averages down to "dumb, panicky animals".
It’s not that the masses are so smart, it’s that the “elites” are so mind bogglingly stupid.
I'd rather not be mistaken for a populist. Certainly elites have been pushing society forward.
Democracy is about accepting the fact that people know their own needs better than everyone else does, and that they should be free to express those needs, and to elect representatives that will fight for those needs. Even when we are talking about an illiterate population.
Personally, given recent times, I think the political axis is bullshit, because the real divide, that's driving polarisation, is between liberalism and autocracy. The allure of autocracy is getting stronger, many feel the need for someone wise to force the plebs into doing things "for their own good". Just one example — vaccination certificates, which in my country did not work, and effectively discriminated against the poor.
I don't know much about the history of US's founding, but until a document becomes culture, it's just a piece of paper to wipe your ass with ;-)
Democracy is about accepting the fact that people know their own needs better than everyone else does, and that they should be free to express those needs, and to elect representatives that will fight for those needs. Even when we are talking about an illiterate population.
Personally, given recent times, I think the political axis is bullshit, because the real divide, that's driving polarisation, is between liberalism and autocracy. The allure of autocracy is getting stronger, many feel the need for someone wise to force the plebs into doing things "for their own good". Just one example — vaccination certificates, which in my country did not work, and effectively discriminated against the poor.
I don't know much about the history of US's founding, but until a document becomes culture, it's just a piece of paper to wipe your ass with ;-)
> The Internet (big I) was more than just a lot of wires...
Yup, it was a series of tubes :)
Yup, it was a series of tubes :)
why is it so important that internet is capital? in english it would all be lower case to be gramatically correct, in german all nouns are capital
> The Internet standards community historically differentiated between an internet, as a short-form of an internetwork, and the Internet: treating the latter as a proper noun with a capital letter, and the former as a common noun with a lower-case first letter. An internet is any set of interconnected Internet Protocol (IP) networks.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalization_of_Internet
The Internet is the biggest internet, the biggest connected component in the graph of computer nodes.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalization_of_Internet
The Internet is the biggest internet, the biggest connected component in the graph of computer nodes.
There's two types of wants. The low want of a heroin addict who wants his next fix, and the higher want of the same heroin addict who wants to get clean and a better life. These "wants" can both coexist. If you only use their actions to infer their wants you completely ignore the existence of their higher order wants. It's dehumanizing.
The people want the internet in the "next fix" sense. But I'd argue that the increase in mental illness globally the last ~15 years (starting a couple of years after the introduction of the iPhone) or even just the recent popularity of "digital detoxes" implies that there is a collective higher order want for a better internet.
The people want the internet in the "next fix" sense. But I'd argue that the increase in mental illness globally the last ~15 years (starting a couple of years after the introduction of the iPhone) or even just the recent popularity of "digital detoxes" implies that there is a collective higher order want for a better internet.
Both you and GP are assuming people to be perfectly spherical rational actors in a philosophical vacuum. Under this assumption, people are indeed responsible for what they get, as the market only serves the demand. But that's not the world we live in - in our world, "revealed preferences" are bunk, because the suppliers have a lot of tools to control the demand.
The "hoi polloi" aren't born with fully fleshed out idea of "what they really want". Nor do they have much ability to communicate their wants to the market directly. Rather, their wants are in large part created by marketers, and the only signal they can send to the market (via "voting with your wallet") is their relative preferences for options available on the market. That is, they only get to choose from what's available. And what's available is under control of the vendors.
The way this relates to your "lower/higher order wants" is that my actions can actually communicate either of them. Where I spend my attention, or my money, can be driven directly by a high-order want - but I'm still limited to expressing that need only by choosing from a very limited set of actions or products that are available, and then my choice is also heavily biased by sales tricks and manipulative advertising strategies.
In short: I claim that the market is currently robbing all consumers of agency - "hoi polloi" and ${whatever the complement to that is called} alike. This is especially pronounced in tech industry, as commercial software resist commoditization - most apps and services are sticky and not interchangeable, so the UX decisions aren't being strongly influenced by competitive pressure. The vendors have an actual choice of how useful or how abusive they want to be. And they should get the blame when they choose the latter.
The "hoi polloi" aren't born with fully fleshed out idea of "what they really want". Nor do they have much ability to communicate their wants to the market directly. Rather, their wants are in large part created by marketers, and the only signal they can send to the market (via "voting with your wallet") is their relative preferences for options available on the market. That is, they only get to choose from what's available. And what's available is under control of the vendors.
The way this relates to your "lower/higher order wants" is that my actions can actually communicate either of them. Where I spend my attention, or my money, can be driven directly by a high-order want - but I'm still limited to expressing that need only by choosing from a very limited set of actions or products that are available, and then my choice is also heavily biased by sales tricks and manipulative advertising strategies.
In short: I claim that the market is currently robbing all consumers of agency - "hoi polloi" and ${whatever the complement to that is called} alike. This is especially pronounced in tech industry, as commercial software resist commoditization - most apps and services are sticky and not interchangeable, so the UX decisions aren't being strongly influenced by competitive pressure. The vendors have an actual choice of how useful or how abusive they want to be. And they should get the blame when they choose the latter.
This is an insightful explanation.
I see a three stage change, from the pre-Bernays world of informational advertising and functional markets, to the post-Bernays world of contrived demand driven by psychological advertising, to what we have now.
Now we have policy driven economics in which technological goods are foisted upon the population and a post-hoc rationale of why they are necessary is relentlessly pushed as an explanatory narrative.
We're approaching the point where the "very limited set of actions or products " is so dominant that the only choice looks like abstinence; the "Luddite's" choice to not be abused.
I see a three stage change, from the pre-Bernays world of informational advertising and functional markets, to the post-Bernays world of contrived demand driven by psychological advertising, to what we have now.
Now we have policy driven economics in which technological goods are foisted upon the population and a post-hoc rationale of why they are necessary is relentlessly pushed as an explanatory narrative.
We're approaching the point where the "very limited set of actions or products " is so dominant that the only choice looks like abstinence; the "Luddite's" choice to not be abused.
What about the middle ground want of a heroin addict who loves heroin but wants pure, unadulterated, properly-dosed, controlled, trustworthy heroin from reputable, consistent vendors, accessed sanely and easily, taken quietly and unobtrusively, so they can float around and have a good time when it fits into their life?
Isn't that the dream of good technology and good internet?
People want the "next fix" internet because that's all they know. People would likely prefer a different internet if they ever had the chance to experience it.
Isn't that the dream of good technology and good internet?
People want the "next fix" internet because that's all they know. People would likely prefer a different internet if they ever had the chance to experience it.
You undermine the argument in favor of "better internet" with a terrible analogy from war on drugs.
There are plenty normal, highly functional heroin users whom we don't know about because they hide this (since it's prosecuted). The poster examples of abuse are not them however, which helps justify prosecution. On the other hand there are people with mental issues who will get addicted to anything, if not heroin then weed, if not weed then gambling, if not gambling then social media, etc etc. Maybe "dehumanizing" is trying to ban every potential vice rather than fixing the issues that lead to misuse. The cause vs. the symptom.
There are plenty normal, highly functional heroin users whom we don't know about because they hide this (since it's prosecuted). The poster examples of abuse are not them however, which helps justify prosecution. On the other hand there are people with mental issues who will get addicted to anything, if not heroin then weed, if not weed then gambling, if not gambling then social media, etc etc. Maybe "dehumanizing" is trying to ban every potential vice rather than fixing the issues that lead to misuse. The cause vs. the symptom.
I'd highly recommend "The Myth of Normal" by Gabor Mat\'e as the long
version of this position.
But beware, once you accept its premise one must concede by the same token, those who prey upon the vulnerable in society, whether they are heroin farmers and dealers, or addictive app developers, are cut from the same moral cloth. The "legality" or "illegality" of the end product is immaterial, only the social effects.
But beware, once you accept its premise one must concede by the same token, those who prey upon the vulnerable in society, whether they are heroin farmers and dealers, or addictive app developers, are cut from the same moral cloth. The "legality" or "illegality" of the end product is immaterial, only the social effects.
It's also true. But I don't think this is the best analogy to support the idea of "better internet". Also, you can consider that people who prey on vulnerable are maybe also subject to issues. If not then why prey, right?
> The people have their Internet already. They like [...]
Those are the things that have literally no value me. You'd think the internet would be large enough to address pretty much everybody's needs, including mine, but it's getting pretty clear that it's not.
Those are the things that have literally no value me. You'd think the internet would be large enough to address pretty much everybody's needs, including mine, but it's getting pretty clear that it's not.
That's the economies of scale at work. It's more profitable to address larger markets with cheaper and worse products, than a smaller market with better but more expensive products.
Now, given the near-zero up-front costs to making software, there should still be enough room for all the niche needs, but the annoying thing is, the computing ecosystem itself - the hardware, the software platforms (OS, browsers) and even the tools used to make them - it's all being optimized for the mass market / lowest common denominator. As silly as it is, professionals can't get good tools, because the tooling is caught in the gravity well of more generic, mass market products.
The part that really gets me is how this starts making effective use of computers ("bicycle for the mind" stuff) impossible. My go-to example: it doesn't matter if you figure out how to make fully open source & open hardware smartphones for nerds. Even if you make them competitive on price and power with mass-market products. It doesn't matter that you somehow hired John Ousterhout and Edward Tufte to make the maximally ergonomic and functional apps for the platform. I'm still going to buy a regular locked down smartphone, because I need one to be able to use my bank account, and my bank - like all other banks - demand you use a locked-down device from a major vendor, with full device attestation ("because security").
The freedom of computing stops at the network.
Now, given the near-zero up-front costs to making software, there should still be enough room for all the niche needs, but the annoying thing is, the computing ecosystem itself - the hardware, the software platforms (OS, browsers) and even the tools used to make them - it's all being optimized for the mass market / lowest common denominator. As silly as it is, professionals can't get good tools, because the tooling is caught in the gravity well of more generic, mass market products.
The part that really gets me is how this starts making effective use of computers ("bicycle for the mind" stuff) impossible. My go-to example: it doesn't matter if you figure out how to make fully open source & open hardware smartphones for nerds. Even if you make them competitive on price and power with mass-market products. It doesn't matter that you somehow hired John Ousterhout and Edward Tufte to make the maximally ergonomic and functional apps for the platform. I'm still going to buy a regular locked down smartphone, because I need one to be able to use my bank account, and my bank - like all other banks - demand you use a locked-down device from a major vendor, with full device attestation ("because security").
The freedom of computing stops at the network.
> As silly as it is, professionals can't get good tools, because the
tooling is caught in the gravity well of more generic, mass market
products.
This also happened in hardware.
Back in the day we could design wide range devices using quite widely available "mil-spec" semiconductors and components - a common difference was in logic circuits where you had 74-series in consumer and commercial (0 °C to 70 °C and −40 ° to 85 °C temperature ranges) and milspec 54-series that would suffer −55 °C to 125 °C.
Following something in the 90s called the Perry initiative IIRC, the rules changed to test-based performance that enhanced "market supply" rather than prescribed manufacturing methods, so after STD-883 almost all wide range components disappeared.
Sure if you're NASA or the US DoD you can get stuff made, but increasingly everyone has to source from the same few commercial suppliers. The upshot is that if you're organising an Antarctic survey, or going into the desert it's almost impossible to kit our with modern gear that won't fail. You're stuck trawling eBay for some 1980s Soviet stuff.
This also happened in hardware.
Back in the day we could design wide range devices using quite widely available "mil-spec" semiconductors and components - a common difference was in logic circuits where you had 74-series in consumer and commercial (0 °C to 70 °C and −40 ° to 85 °C temperature ranges) and milspec 54-series that would suffer −55 °C to 125 °C.
Following something in the 90s called the Perry initiative IIRC, the rules changed to test-based performance that enhanced "market supply" rather than prescribed manufacturing methods, so after STD-883 almost all wide range components disappeared.
Sure if you're NASA or the US DoD you can get stuff made, but increasingly everyone has to source from the same few commercial suppliers. The upshot is that if you're organising an Antarctic survey, or going into the desert it's almost impossible to kit our with modern gear that won't fail. You're stuck trawling eBay for some 1980s Soviet stuff.
[deleted]
Kuro5hin, Slashdot, heck- The WELL all still exist. Old-school platforms and communities are on the internet. So do old-fashioned personal websites. They might have a pittance of users, but they're out there. Is that not what you want? But what you can't want, is for a large amount of people to use them, if they have no inclination to.
It'd be great if everyone started making their own Neocities site. Or even just drop contemporary social media and join the new Friendster (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38021802) or Spacehey. But the cultural impetus just isn't there.
It'd be great if everyone started making their own Neocities site. Or even just drop contemporary social media and join the new Friendster (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38021802) or Spacehey. But the cultural impetus just isn't there.
> But what you can't want, is for a large amount of people to use them
If I have a bias about audience size, it tends to be toward "smaller is better".
If I have a bias about audience size, it tends to be toward "smaller is better".
rusty shut k5 down 7.5 years ago after years and years of being a deadbeat dad to the site – wasn't even willing to keep a static archive of the site up
And we are all worse off for it.
Let the "people" have their mobile apps. Keep computing hardcore!
Let the "people" have their mobile apps. Keep computing hardcore!
Except "the masses" do create extraordinary art and educate themselves. Really, we're in the midst of an artistic and creative renaissance on all fronts and in all media, specifically because of the capabilities you hate about the modern web. You just aren't aware of it because it thrives on platforms you would never be caught dead on.
And the "elites" are the ones who created the toxicity of web and gaming culture and made bank on all of those pedestrian forms of entertainment... which they themselves also consume.
And the "elites" are the ones who created the toxicity of web and gaming culture and made bank on all of those pedestrian forms of entertainment... which they themselves also consume.
thanks to the bbc brit, the subthread essentially culminated in your comment. I'd like to clarify that this dichotomy didn't exist in my original. "technology elite" like somebody hinted elsewhere in the thread, could be a dirt poor kid from underprivileged background, whose accidental access to a computer was the only means of escape from the oppressive reality. at a certain level of technological sophistication one could gain capabilities and access that make one belong to a select group, making one part of the elite. from this perspective, "the masses" are literally everyone else who wasn't on the internet in the early 2000s. yes, by weight and numbers there will be an inordinate amount of talented individuals among them. there will also be perhaps an even bigger number of complete and utter mediocrities. since the person you're responding to doesn't use the term "elites", I can only assume it's everyone you don't like, because some of them would've been technological elites, who then became financial ones, but then some of them would've been financial elites, who remained financial elites never becoming technological ones, and yet by the power of their capital they've exploited technology. they are I guess bad. most of the humanity are good, because a lot of talented ones make art. what a pointless subthread, god damn.
>what a pointless subthread, god damn.
Welcome to Hacker News. You're being weirdly hostile and pedantic about a reply that wasn't even to you. Please touch grass or whatever it is the kids say these days..
Welcome to Hacker News. You're being weirdly hostile and pedantic about a reply that wasn't even to you. Please touch grass or whatever it is the kids say these days..
jeez, krapp, you've been posting on hacker news since like forever, doing drive by hate posts in random threads all the time, and you tell me to "touch grass". I'll change the password on this bad boy, and won't interact with you fucks for at least like another half a year. /but you're here forever/
Bravo. I am reminded of the “noble savage” concept whenever I read that the people will rise up and support the libre Internet, if they would simply be introduced to it, from pseudo-vanguard tech-literati.
Dialectical virtualism?
The market has spoken, and the market prefers locked-down platforms and subscriptions.
Dialectical virtualism?
The market has spoken, and the market prefers locked-down platforms and subscriptions.
No, the merchants have spoken.
I'll say in the same spirit that Margaret Thatcher said "there's no such thing as society" [0] that;
There's no such thing as markets.
[0] Please read the full quote (and for extra fun replace the word society with markets). Thatcher was saying something far more subtle than the sociopathy she is credited for. Markets have just replaced "society" as the ideological symbol of those who need something to get on their knees before, or blame.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/context-for-margaret-thatchers...
I'll say in the same spirit that Margaret Thatcher said "there's no such thing as society" [0] that;
There's no such thing as markets.
[0] Please read the full quote (and for extra fun replace the word society with markets). Thatcher was saying something far more subtle than the sociopathy she is credited for. Markets have just replaced "society" as the ideological symbol of those who need something to get on their knees before, or blame.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/context-for-margaret-thatchers...
I don’t agree. Conceptually “the market” in this context is just individual purchasing decisions in the aggregate.
The people, voting with their dollars, have decided that they simply don’t care about privacy, libre software, etc as much as we wish they would.
The people, voting with their dollars, have decided that they simply don’t care about privacy, libre software, etc as much as we wish they would.
Perhaps you might agree if you expand your view to encompass more than
money. The words "just" and "aggregate" are where I think something
important is missed. Collapsing the whole of human life and its
myriad vectors of complexity down to one scalar, one single "dollar
value", and then based on that making pronouncements about whether
people value "privacy" or "security" or whatever, seems child-like to
me (The idea. Not you. If you really hold it I hope you can move
beyond it.)
"Markets" are like Father Christmas and "The Tooth Fairy"; a comforting one-dimensional idea that ought to serve us for a while, and then be discarded for a more mature perspective on the world. We must all try harder to find words that puncture the suffocating veil of "economic realism" that seems to hold back so much thinking.
"Markets" are like Father Christmas and "The Tooth Fairy"; a comforting one-dimensional idea that ought to serve us for a while, and then be discarded for a more mature perspective on the world. We must all try harder to find words that puncture the suffocating veil of "economic realism" that seems to hold back so much thinking.
you misunderstood the concept, brought in your own windmills, and then successfully attacked them. I guess it generated an interesting subthread, even if it did derail my point into the tired "internet ain't what it used to be!" direction. god, I was hoping what I said was more subtle than that. other people in the thread have done better, even managed to use google to search the original posts on oblomovka so that they can reflect on the point, instead of just typing things.
but to your "people's internet" point, the real communism has clearly never been tried! it's not the people that want TikTok, it's the power structure. left to their own devices they built cathedrals!
but to your "people's internet" point, the real communism has clearly never been tried! it's not the people that want TikTok, it's the power structure. left to their own devices they built cathedrals!
Sorry if I stole some of your thunder there old chap. I don't think I
"misunderstood the concept" but rather found it wanting and moved the
discussion on. The focus was your precis of the term "hinternet" which
I found very interesting and so addressed.
Where it landed (perhaps thanks to TeMPOraL) was actually quite exciting in my opinion, that, in the words of The Jam:
> real communism has clearly never been tried!
Not sure I follow how a vibrant, diverse, bottom-up, self-governed Internet would be akin to "communism", but then you've got your own windmills to tilt at too.
Where it landed (perhaps thanks to TeMPOraL) was actually quite exciting in my opinion, that, in the words of The Jam:
"the public wants what the public gets."
> real communism has clearly never been tried!
Not sure I follow how a vibrant, diverse, bottom-up, self-governed Internet would be akin to "communism", but then you've got your own windmills to tilt at too.
the public's wants are always reduced to trite generalizations, so maybe it's not about thunder, maybe the upset is that one can generate lively conversation easily by exploiting trite dichotomies, and that such a behavior is distasteful. everybody has an opinion on the hoi polloi from the vantage of their phantom high horse. a chat gpt could write the rest of the thread.
"real communism has clearly never been tried" is a set expression, from the internet. it's a variation on doing the same thing, but expecting different results, with a touch of ideological stubbornness, "this time around if we let people choose, they'll choose a very different internet, from the one they chose before, i'm sure of it, because I believe in people". of course the reason I choose this particular set expression, rather than some other one is to play off your comedic choice of terminology "people's internet". they have "people's internet" in "people's republic of china". you know? I'm not saying communism bad, it's a funny phrase. jeez, you brits used to be keen on subtle humor.
"real communism has clearly never been tried" is a set expression, from the internet. it's a variation on doing the same thing, but expecting different results, with a touch of ideological stubbornness, "this time around if we let people choose, they'll choose a very different internet, from the one they chose before, i'm sure of it, because I believe in people". of course the reason I choose this particular set expression, rather than some other one is to play off your comedic choice of terminology "people's internet". they have "people's internet" in "people's republic of china". you know? I'm not saying communism bad, it's a funny phrase. jeez, you brits used to be keen on subtle humor.
I sympathise with you. It's sometimes hard to get the conversations
you want on the internet. But then you have to take people as you find
them right? And try to learn something, even (especially) where that's
uncomfortable?. Sometimes it's bloody awful. But I come here because I
_get_ something; Not knowing what certain demographics think about
contemporary issues is worse than knowing and being upset/offended,
and I genuinely need that intel to get a fix on what I'm doing.
> a chat gpt could write the rest of the thread.
That's a low opinion of our fellows. Be careful what you wish for. In a few years a forum like this might be untenable for that reason. What keeps it going is precisely the "faith in people" you seem at odds with. Let's not assume it's ideological stubbornness to imagine things could have been different or that they could be different in the future.
> subtle humour
Now I really sympathise. I'm frequently at the sharp end of trying that, and you must know it almost never translates in this forum. Mainly because there is so much sarcasm and double-think that nobody (even the authors) are unsure whether they are making one point, or its opposite.
Respects.
> a chat gpt could write the rest of the thread.
That's a low opinion of our fellows. Be careful what you wish for. In a few years a forum like this might be untenable for that reason. What keeps it going is precisely the "faith in people" you seem at odds with. Let's not assume it's ideological stubbornness to imagine things could have been different or that they could be different in the future.
> subtle humour
Now I really sympathise. I'm frequently at the sharp end of trying that, and you must know it almost never translates in this forum. Mainly because there is so much sarcasm and double-think that nobody (even the authors) are unsure whether they are making one point, or its opposite.
Respects.
Most problems stem from users conflating for-profit corporations for public commons. Nonprofit co-ops must provide critical infrastructure.
Who exactly is this prerogative "freeloader" you throw around so casually? Is there some service or good denied others involved?
Who exactly is this prerogative "freeloader" you throw around so casually? Is there some service or good denied others involved?
> Who exactly is this prerogative "freeloader" you throw around so
casually? Is there some service or good denied others involved?
Spammers would be a good example. They freeload on the mail routing network. Their actions deny service, as bandwidth, storage and wasted time to millions of ordinary users.
Spammers would be a good example. They freeload on the mail routing network. Their actions deny service, as bandwidth, storage and wasted time to millions of ordinary users.
For any readers, “Scylla and Charybdis” is the OG “rock and a hard place.”
you mean - for any readers from the unwashed masses surely?!?
> There are attempts to cultivate little gardens of sophistication, but they are of mixed success.
Mastodon comes to mind, whose openness allows me to browse it from emacs with mastodon.el.
Removing full or even useful content from both RSS and notification emails comes to mind as well.
Mastodon comes to mind, whose openness allows me to browse it from emacs with mastodon.el.
Removing full or even useful content from both RSS and notification emails comes to mind as well.
An internet for the technical elite… sounds like gopher (if more people used it)
Less users is probably a feature.
Don't we technically still have the non-hinternet in the Darknet/Tor? I've been there a super long time ago and I don't remember it being any better.
> forcing you to access them from iPads and other such locked down devices, or not at all
Why does HN have to turn literally everything into an opportunity to bash Apple?
Apparently most of HN is not aware that multiple Android manufacturers implemented hardware destruction features when a device detects it has been rooted? That Google sold devices which were nearly impossible to root, jailbreak, or install another OS on, to protect the interests of a carrier (Verizon)?
Why does HN have to turn literally everything into an opportunity to bash Apple?
Apparently most of HN is not aware that multiple Android manufacturers implemented hardware destruction features when a device detects it has been rooted? That Google sold devices which were nearly impossible to root, jailbreak, or install another OS on, to protect the interests of a carrier (Verizon)?
I'm not hn, and primarily it's because I don't believe that pseudonymous conversation generates interesting dialog. I mean user a says something, user b misunderstand, user c attacks user b's misunderstanding. in aggregate it's fun to read, if you don't have a goal, but mostly it's just an opportunity to read your own clever writing.
dearest Kenneth, I did not mean to single out apple or iPads. it's just that in my circle nobody uses androids (and my circle is predominantly non-tech!). I've not even seen an android in a very long time. I've spent some time trying to "libre-ify" chrome books, and discovered, like you said, that the devices are heavily locked down, with multiple tiers of mystery chips (for your protection!) ensuring that you can never really de-google them. but when I think "locked down consumer device for checking your mortgage account" I think "iPad", because that's all and exclusively what I ever see.
dearest Kenneth, I did not mean to single out apple or iPads. it's just that in my circle nobody uses androids (and my circle is predominantly non-tech!). I've not even seen an android in a very long time. I've spent some time trying to "libre-ify" chrome books, and discovered, like you said, that the devices are heavily locked down, with multiple tiers of mystery chips (for your protection!) ensuring that you can never really de-google them. but when I think "locked down consumer device for checking your mortgage account" I think "iPad", because that's all and exclusively what I ever see.
Thanks for recommending Oblomovka, great read.
Link to the piece if anyone finds this in the future:
https://www.oblomovka.com/wp/2003/04/15/the-hinternet/
(It was both strangely broken in my WP database, and also I think my website was down when OP write this. Sorry!)
(It was both strangely broken in my WP database, and also I think my website was down when OP write this. Sorry!)
Yes! I hate websites that put useful content in a thin column in the center.
What's worse, formerly normal websites start degrading. Typically, when a new manager is hired and decides to "reimagine" the product with the "mobile-first" vision. The recent Patreon is a good example.
And of course, in some cases normal websites go away entirely, and are replaced with crapps: Venmo, Amazon Alexa, Chamberlain, etc.
What's worse, formerly normal websites start degrading. Typically, when a new manager is hired and decides to "reimagine" the product with the "mobile-first" vision. The recent Patreon is a good example.
And of course, in some cases normal websites go away entirely, and are replaced with crapps: Venmo, Amazon Alexa, Chamberlain, etc.
Omg yes!
It has finally been told! I was crying and talking about making the return of information rich websites, but people were just following trends blindly :(
It has finally been told! I was crying and talking about making the return of information rich websites, but people were just following trends blindly :(
view point in article mostly from an user perspective, but if same stuff would be reviewed from companies perspectives most of that negatives has positive effects for marketing/sales needs which probably a reason why is so widespread.
It's like: our visitor can't just see our half page table with tech spec to know everything, he should go trough 20 images on 2 long pages and during that we will show him all our 'important' messages that he won't be interested otherwise.
It's like: our visitor can't just see our half page table with tech spec to know everything, he should go trough 20 images on 2 long pages and during that we will show him all our 'important' messages that he won't be interested otherwise.
PREACH
opposite way in: 2013 article about high density on the japanese web being (in part) a legacy of their pre smartphone era
opposite way in: 2013 article about high density on the japanese web being (in part) a legacy of their pre smartphone era
Someone told me that Japanese websites tend to look outdated because all of the tooling and code is itself in Japanese, and since that stuff hasn't been updated in a while, the final products are a bit stuck.
Many websites will completely alter their UI based on resizing your window. Sometimes I want to set a browser to take up half of a monitor so that I can put something else next to it. This often fails on modern websites because the UI becomes unusable after the window is resized
This is the "responsive" part of "responsive design". When done well, it's great, but you're right that many websites are way too aggressive about it, as if they only really tested two size classes.
I'm mostly appalled at how many desktop users just maximize everything.
I even had juniors maximizing terminals.
I even had juniors maximizing terminals.
Why is this appalling?
I think it’s fine until someone sends me a screenshot of my website in fullscreen on a giant 4K monitor.
Because the point of huge monitors in the WIMP paradigm is to display multiple windows simultaneously.
^multitasking
"We suffered for years waiting to get true multitasking and this newb doesn't even use it!" ;-)
"We suffered for years waiting to get true multitasking and this newb doesn't even use it!" ;-)
I assume you're not referring to Weakly Interacting Massive Particles as a theory of dark matter - what does WIMP mean here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIMP_(computing)
The design developed at Xerox Parc.
The design developed at Xerox Parc.
It makes every window interaction slower when I'm helping them and, I assume, when they're alone. I usually have two panes of code and one or terminals on the side so I don't spend time hunting for windows
I wrote my own window manager that's mostly centred around maximized windows and terminals (it's like a wiling WM but without the tiling, where most things are always maximized).
Guess I must be a junior then.
Stop judging other people's personal preferences. It's their computer and whatever works for them is a good solution.
Guess I must be a junior then.
Stop judging other people's personal preferences. It's their computer and whatever works for them is a good solution.
[deleted]
I do maximize terminal when I have to do something more complex and I have multiple zellij (I used tmux before) panes opened.
For me it is much better than multiple terminal windows...
Some websites are better maximized too, like maps for example.
For me it is much better than multiple terminal windows...
Some websites are better maximized too, like maps for example.
Tmux makes sense. These guys were just having one bash session with like 300 columns
would you rather them use half the screen for their terminal and the other half for subway surfers?
I have to maximize my terminal so I can slice it into a bunch of tmux and vim windows and make a pseudo-tiled window manager.
[deleted]
Bemoaning people maximizing terminals - what a weird hill to die on.
It depends on your screen size and workflow. I used to have three monitors and now find myself having one monitor, maximize the windows (except for the terminal so that the prompt isn't too far down there) and quickly switch between those windows with CMD + Tab so that I'm not distracted by the multitude of opened windows.
Unless you have a huuuuuge monitor, most things look good maximized.
I switched to a 52" TV ~2 years ago. It's the first time I found I didn't like maximized windows.
Personally, I find the way windows overlap distracting. It's labor to organize windows.
I switched to a 52" TV ~2 years ago. It's the first time I found I didn't like maximized windows.
Personally, I find the way windows overlap distracting. It's labor to organize windows.
I've never used a window that wasn't maximized. I have focus issues. If there are two windows on the screen it becomes hard for me to concentrate. I have two monitors if I really need two windows (e.g. debugger on one screen). Otherwise it's maximized all day.
Would love to see an example of what you're saying. Do you mean when shrinking the the view the functionality and content aren't accessible anymore?
For some websites, once you reach a certain width in pixels, the designers assumed you are using a tablet or cellphone instead of a desktop, so they give you the pared down mobile website whether you want it or not.
E.g.:
https://www.nytimes.com/
E.g.:
https://www.nytimes.com/
I'm gonna complain about HN though; while it may not have been intended to be mobile first, it kinda is, leading to overly wide text in comments if using a full screen browser. This is the same issue that the previous iteration of Wikipedia's design had.
As a user, when I set my browser to be full screen, I expect the content to take up the full screen. I bought a nice big 27" monitor, and I want to use it. How dare some UX designer 2,000 miles away from me simply decide that I should only be able to see content on a 5" wide strip down the middle!
The browser should be the User's Agent, not the Web Developer's Agent. If I want to do something with my browser layout that a designer finds appalling, that should not be his concern.
If the web developer and designer really think that text should appear in tiny 5" columns no matter how wide my browser is, fine, then flow your design to display multiple side-by-side columns like a newspaper. Don't just fill my screen with whitespace.
The browser should be the User's Agent, not the Web Developer's Agent. If I want to do something with my browser layout that a designer finds appalling, that should not be his concern.
If the web developer and designer really think that text should appear in tiny 5" columns no matter how wide my browser is, fine, then flow your design to display multiple side-by-side columns like a newspaper. Don't just fill my screen with whitespace.
I think multiple side-by-side columns would be great. Actually, do you know of any sites that actually re-flow text like that? It’d love to see it.
I don’t really want text to reflow to be, like 23, inches wide or whatever. Books with 23 inch wide pages are quite rare, because, I think, that is too much horizontal space, scanning that far with you eyes can become a drag. Of course, if a page just uses the whole width uninterrupted for text I can just give it half the screen, so that is fine. But I’m curious, do you actually like the look of a page like that? Or is this just on principle—respect user choice and all that (if so, good principle!)
In general web devs seem to think way too much about the layout of pages, if they would just do the simple thing users could resize the window to their liking.
I don’t really want text to reflow to be, like 23, inches wide or whatever. Books with 23 inch wide pages are quite rare, because, I think, that is too much horizontal space, scanning that far with you eyes can become a drag. Of course, if a page just uses the whole width uninterrupted for text I can just give it half the screen, so that is fine. But I’m curious, do you actually like the look of a page like that? Or is this just on principle—respect user choice and all that (if so, good principle!)
In general web devs seem to think way too much about the layout of pages, if they would just do the simple thing users could resize the window to their liking.
I think I might have seen the "column-ization" method once and was impressed by it.
HN's handling of different browser widths is... pretty weird, at least on my Desktop Safari browser. Looks like from browser widths of 1920px and greater, HN maintains fixed size whitespace borders and scales the content width. Nice. When you shrink the window past 1600px, it holds the content size fixed and shrinks the borders. I guess the intent is to smoothly transition into a mobile design without the borders. Past 1516px, it removes the borders altogether, and seems to transition into this "mobile" design. Between there and around 610px, it seems to shrink the content width by discrete fixed amounts every 200px or so, to "keep up" with the browser width. Finally, below 610px or so, the site goes back to the non-mobile design, laying out as if the browser was 1600px wide (and actually truncating the right hand side of the text)--totally broken.
All that complexity--for a text only site! When they could just make the text 100% of the browser width and let me as the user decide what is comfortable to view. It's still much, much better than sites that just limit the content width to 600 pixels and fill everything else with whitespace!
HN's handling of different browser widths is... pretty weird, at least on my Desktop Safari browser. Looks like from browser widths of 1920px and greater, HN maintains fixed size whitespace borders and scales the content width. Nice. When you shrink the window past 1600px, it holds the content size fixed and shrinks the borders. I guess the intent is to smoothly transition into a mobile design without the borders. Past 1516px, it removes the borders altogether, and seems to transition into this "mobile" design. Between there and around 610px, it seems to shrink the content width by discrete fixed amounts every 200px or so, to "keep up" with the browser width. Finally, below 610px or so, the site goes back to the non-mobile design, laying out as if the browser was 1600px wide (and actually truncating the right hand side of the text)--totally broken.
All that complexity--for a text only site! When they could just make the text 100% of the browser width and let me as the user decide what is comfortable to view. It's still much, much better than sites that just limit the content width to 600 pixels and fill everything else with whitespace!
Multi-column layouts only work if there's no vertical scrolling, or at least if the layout reflows so that there's no need to keep scrolling down & up & down to read each page of content.
Pagination is much better than stupid scrolling, that's why we switched from scrolling to pages a thousand years ago.
If it's done well, pagination is nice. But (as in my previous post) I'm reminded of PDFs of multi-column articles where the text is tiny and doesn't re-flow when zoomed so you end up zooming in on the page to be able to read it, then scrolling down to read the text that's now off the bottom of the screen, then up & over to the next column, down towards the bottom again, etc. Then finally down to the next page & back across to the first column. That is a much worse experience than just scrolling in a single direction.
It's fixable, of course, by "just" re-flowing the text to match the viewport size. On a desktop, pages of multi-column text at a readable font size are nice. On a phone, multi-column text would be annoying, but a smaller font size can be used because phones are typically held closer to the face than computer monitors. Getting the layout to work correctly like this isn't something I can actually remember ever seeing, but it'd provide a "best of both worlds" way of reading.
It's fixable, of course, by "just" re-flowing the text to match the viewport size. On a desktop, pages of multi-column text at a readable font size are nice. On a phone, multi-column text would be annoying, but a smaller font size can be used because phones are typically held closer to the face than computer monitors. Getting the layout to work correctly like this isn't something I can actually remember ever seeing, but it'd provide a "best of both worlds" way of reading.
Columns that adapt to window height is a solved problem, if you for example check out epub.js [0] or the built in ebook reader in Yandex browser. I'd say this is a "just" problem with no particular difficulties to implement.
Continuing with scrolling as default instead of pagination after the switch to high-res wide screen monitors was a mistake by browser makers. The future of the web - I think - will be with browsers that are real user agents and open every web page in reader mode, with multi-media presented exactly as the user wants. No more letting web-sites control CSS.
As for web-apps, they are not the web, they are programs and should live as PWAs in the OS instead of as bookmarks in the browser.
Like you wrote, there is little reason for column view on phones. Their width is one column and no more. I agree with you that it's strange that we never see this, especially on blogs or newspaper websites, where column view should be used.
[0] https://futurepress.github.io/epubjs-reader/
Continuing with scrolling as default instead of pagination after the switch to high-res wide screen monitors was a mistake by browser makers. The future of the web - I think - will be with browsers that are real user agents and open every web page in reader mode, with multi-media presented exactly as the user wants. No more letting web-sites control CSS.
As for web-apps, they are not the web, they are programs and should live as PWAs in the OS instead of as bookmarks in the browser.
Like you wrote, there is little reason for column view on phones. Their width is one column and no more. I agree with you that it's strange that we never see this, especially on blogs or newspaper websites, where column view should be used.
[0] https://futurepress.github.io/epubjs-reader/
You suggest that a site owner should design the page how you want it, not how they want it. But neither is the case. Their task is to design it in a way that is acceptable for many different people. For most users, maximising the browser window does not mean they want text paragraphs to become very wide, it just means they want to block out distractions. And most readers benefit from plenty of whitespace and a conventional line width of 50-70 characters. It’s not that the designer is appalled by your preferences, it’s just that you aren’t the only person who matters.
You say the browser “should” be your agent - but it is. You can use ‘reader’ mode or any number of browser extensions to tailor things for your own tastes, or even copy and paste the article text somewhere else to read it however you want. What you cannot reasonably expect is for every site to be ideal for your personal tastes out of the box.
You say the browser “should” be your agent - but it is. You can use ‘reader’ mode or any number of browser extensions to tailor things for your own tastes, or even copy and paste the article text somewhere else to read it however you want. What you cannot reasonably expect is for every site to be ideal for your personal tastes out of the box.
I guess I just expect the web site to at least not deliberately make itself terrible such that users have to resort to big hammers like extensions, "Disable Styles", "Disable JavaScript" and "Reader Mode".
Web sites are fast, flexible, responsive, readable, scrollable, accessible, and respectful of user preferences... by default, from the moment you add text between <body> tags. Then web developers add code and CSS to make them worse. Sometimes they make it better, but very often it's worse.
Web sites are fast, flexible, responsive, readable, scrollable, accessible, and respectful of user preferences... by default, from the moment you add text between <body> tags. Then web developers add code and CSS to make them worse. Sometimes they make it better, but very often it's worse.
It sounds like you prefer that 'academic' style that rests heavily on browser defaults. I personally like that style too, it's not an uncommon preference for HN users. But you must realise it's very niche? Most users of most websites find that kind of design difficult to read and use, so it's rare to see it outside of academic/engineering circles. All you're doing here is asserting your own niche preference, and making out that it's what the majority of people want. It isn't. That's why designers design things the way they do, not (in general) because they are incompetent or malicious. And that's why it's great that you have the option of using extensions/reader-mode/copy-pasting/whatever, so you can effectively redesign anything just for you with a small amount of effort. If you expect everything to already be designed for your own unconventional preferences, at the expense of most other users, then that is unreasonable.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Very wide paragraphs is just bad accessibility. It's harder to read and there are studies on this. You can always just disable the page styles if you hate it.
> As a user, when I set my browser to be full screen, I expect the content to take up the full screen. I bought a nice big 27" monitor, and I want to use it. How dare some UX designer 2,000 miles away from me simply decide that I should only be able to see content on a 5" wide strip down the middle!
I've seen this argument come up before multiple times on HN, and it's wild to me. Having sensible CSS defaults is not a designer dictating that you are only able to see content one way. You might prefer to read text in a giant line spread across a giant monitor, and that's fine, but it's not a freedom thing. It's not denying your browser's role as a user agent that sites have CSS files.
Every single website (HN included) makes CSS decisions for the user. What colors should be used, what is the default contrast. Every single line of CSS on a website is a designer decision by a designer 2000 miles away from you about how they think that content should be presented. And if you don't like that, turn off CSS in your web browser. Assuming you're using Firefox (which you should be using), it's trivial to do.
Of course, browsers should allow overriding CSS, and (imo) they should make it easier to do so and more accessible to non-technical users. And yes, part of making a website that respects the browser as a user agent is shipping HTML that can be viewed unstyled and that is easy to override styles for. Ironically, HN does a horrible job of this -- the HTML is not semantic, the use of tables is so egregious that even stripping the CSS out doesn't really remove all of the styling. The site is really messy if you want to override anything. So that HN uses a design that happens to more closely align with what you want does not make the site more respectful of your browser as a user agent. It just means that you and the designer(s) happen to like the same design.
And in comparison, putting `max-width: 45em` on a text column is not even remotely user hostile, it is a very simple CSS property to override -- especially for designs that use single columns because you can change that CSS property without even worrying about reflow. `max-width` is a default that statistically works better for the majority of users even on large monitors (I use a 32 inch 4K monitor and max-widths make text on that monitor easier to read). But of course, some people are different, and that's fine. Go yell at the browser makers to allow easier CSS overrides, or turn off CSS entirely, or install an extension that lets you add CSS to given pages or spend a weekend building an extension that strips max-width out of stylesheets for every website you visit, or customize Firefox's userContent.css file. There are options here. And if you had made an argument about those options, I'd be 100% on board. CSS for websites should be treated as a default setting instead of as a requirement and browsers should support CSS overrides more easily out-of-the-box.
But the idea that designers are denying user agency by not making a proactive design decision to present by default the specific format you want to read -- it's just ludicrous. You're not asking for user freedom, you're asking for designers to target your preferences instead of other people's. Those two things are not the same.
I've seen this argument come up before multiple times on HN, and it's wild to me. Having sensible CSS defaults is not a designer dictating that you are only able to see content one way. You might prefer to read text in a giant line spread across a giant monitor, and that's fine, but it's not a freedom thing. It's not denying your browser's role as a user agent that sites have CSS files.
Every single website (HN included) makes CSS decisions for the user. What colors should be used, what is the default contrast. Every single line of CSS on a website is a designer decision by a designer 2000 miles away from you about how they think that content should be presented. And if you don't like that, turn off CSS in your web browser. Assuming you're using Firefox (which you should be using), it's trivial to do.
Of course, browsers should allow overriding CSS, and (imo) they should make it easier to do so and more accessible to non-technical users. And yes, part of making a website that respects the browser as a user agent is shipping HTML that can be viewed unstyled and that is easy to override styles for. Ironically, HN does a horrible job of this -- the HTML is not semantic, the use of tables is so egregious that even stripping the CSS out doesn't really remove all of the styling. The site is really messy if you want to override anything. So that HN uses a design that happens to more closely align with what you want does not make the site more respectful of your browser as a user agent. It just means that you and the designer(s) happen to like the same design.
And in comparison, putting `max-width: 45em` on a text column is not even remotely user hostile, it is a very simple CSS property to override -- especially for designs that use single columns because you can change that CSS property without even worrying about reflow. `max-width` is a default that statistically works better for the majority of users even on large monitors (I use a 32 inch 4K monitor and max-widths make text on that monitor easier to read). But of course, some people are different, and that's fine. Go yell at the browser makers to allow easier CSS overrides, or turn off CSS entirely, or install an extension that lets you add CSS to given pages or spend a weekend building an extension that strips max-width out of stylesheets for every website you visit, or customize Firefox's userContent.css file. There are options here. And if you had made an argument about those options, I'd be 100% on board. CSS for websites should be treated as a default setting instead of as a requirement and browsers should support CSS overrides more easily out-of-the-box.
But the idea that designers are denying user agency by not making a proactive design decision to present by default the specific format you want to read -- it's just ludicrous. You're not asking for user freedom, you're asking for designers to target your preferences instead of other people's. Those two things are not the same.
I fully agree that browsers should take a more active role in enabling the user to easily set his/her preferences, without them having to re-develop the CSS for each site they visit.
Browsers allow you to disable styles altogether, but as you note, most sites are horribly broken in that mode. Even Google's home page, which should be dead simple, is horribly broken with CSS disabled. I think if browsers had spines and enabled users to be more opinionated about styles, web developers would respond by ensuring their sites worked better without them.
Browsers allow you to disable styles altogether, but as you note, most sites are horribly broken in that mode. Even Google's home page, which should be dead simple, is horribly broken with CSS disabled. I think if browsers had spines and enabled users to be more opinionated about styles, web developers would respond by ensuring their sites worked better without them.
That I completely agree with -- I've had a hot-take a couple of times in the past and I still hold to it, that regardless of what HTML was intended to be or not be originally, today it's at its best when it's treated as a user-facing rendering target, and a lot of the criticisms about HTML's ability to handle things like giant virtual lists are missing the point that you shouldn't have giant lists in your UX in the first place, you shouldn't have a DOM tree that lists out 20,000 options in a `ul` if you're treating HTML like it's a user-facing interface rather than an authorship format for the developer alone.
I'm still honestly a firm believer in the design technique of designing the HTML of a website before I start working on the CSS, and I know that a lot of people call that naive or say that it doesn't work... but I'm not saying that you can't revise the HTML later to fit a design, just that first I want to know what the content is and I want to treat the HTML as a primary rendering target, not an authoring language. I think there are a lot of benefits to that (one being that in addition to being more user-controllable and flexible, it also makes it much easier to do responsive design if you approach web design through that lens because page layouts become views of a unified block of content rather than completely separate isolated designs).
But I don't think including the CSS is where that process falls apart or that it's disrespecting the user or denying agency. It's like how if someone hands me a image of a block of text, my problem is not that the contrast in the image is too light or that it's the wrong color; my problem is that they handed me an image of a text document. If someone hands me a website that is so intrinsically tied to CSS that it's impossible for me to easily adjust column widths, that coupling is the problem more than the column widths.
Firefox does have some some great options around CSS control for partial or small adjustments but in typical Firefox fashion its best features are all hidden like Mozilla is embarrassed of them. I didn't bring up userContent.css to be dismissive; genuinely you should take a look at it if you've never used it before. I make heavy use of it for websites, everything from building grayscale modes when I want a website to be less distracting, to swapping layouts around. But it's a valid criticism that it's not user-facing and you need to go into advanced settings to even enable it. Browsers could do more.
I'm still honestly a firm believer in the design technique of designing the HTML of a website before I start working on the CSS, and I know that a lot of people call that naive or say that it doesn't work... but I'm not saying that you can't revise the HTML later to fit a design, just that first I want to know what the content is and I want to treat the HTML as a primary rendering target, not an authoring language. I think there are a lot of benefits to that (one being that in addition to being more user-controllable and flexible, it also makes it much easier to do responsive design if you approach web design through that lens because page layouts become views of a unified block of content rather than completely separate isolated designs).
But I don't think including the CSS is where that process falls apart or that it's disrespecting the user or denying agency. It's like how if someone hands me a image of a block of text, my problem is not that the contrast in the image is too light or that it's the wrong color; my problem is that they handed me an image of a text document. If someone hands me a website that is so intrinsically tied to CSS that it's impossible for me to easily adjust column widths, that coupling is the problem more than the column widths.
Firefox does have some some great options around CSS control for partial or small adjustments but in typical Firefox fashion its best features are all hidden like Mozilla is embarrassed of them. I didn't bring up userContent.css to be dismissive; genuinely you should take a look at it if you've never used it before. I make heavy use of it for websites, everything from building grayscale modes when I want a website to be less distracting, to swapping layouts around. But it's a valid criticism that it's not user-facing and you need to go into advanced settings to even enable it. Browsers could do more.
> overly wide text
That is completely subjective though, and the user has the option to not use a full screen browser to view the comments. I personally prefer it.
That is completely subjective though, and the user has the option to not use a full screen browser to view the comments. I personally prefer it.
not completely: line length for readability has been subject of interest for centuries
You have the option to make the window more narrow, this is not a fault of the designers.
Disagree; I don't want to have to resize the window each time I switch browser tabs. Sites should work independent of the amount of real-estate my browser is taking up.
Then pray for adjustable margins to come to the web browser like in Wordpad three decades ago. That would actually be quite nice.
Maybe "Refined Hacker News" should fix this.
See: https://github.com/plibither8/refined-hacker-news
Edit: You can use the F12 debugging pane to adjust the width of a single tab without resizing the window. It's kind-of a hack, though.
Just push F12 and drag.
See: https://github.com/plibither8/refined-hacker-news
Edit: You can use the F12 debugging pane to adjust the width of a single tab without resizing the window. It's kind-of a hack, though.
Just push F12 and drag.
[deleted]
Well, I tried setting `resize = "both"` on everything, but it was a bit of a letdown. It would be a neat experiment to have every element of every webpage be interactable (let's say resizable by dragging edges, and modify colors from the right-click menu) with edits persisting between visits.
Array.from(document.querySelectorAll('*')).forEach(el => {el.style.resize='both'})Personally, I find HN difficult and frustrating on mobile: It's all tiny text.
Then again, I rarely read HN on mobile. It's just not the kind of stuff I enjoy looking at when I'm "on the go." Perhaps that's why they never tweaked the layout for mobile?
> ...leading to overly wide text in comments if using a full screen browser.
IMO, that's a bug, both with HN, and with the "default" styling in a browser.
Then again, I rarely read HN on mobile. It's just not the kind of stuff I enjoy looking at when I'm "on the go." Perhaps that's why they never tweaked the layout for mobile?
> ...leading to overly wide text in comments if using a full screen browser.
IMO, that's a bug, both with HN, and with the "default" styling in a browser.
The problem isn't "mobile first" design.
The problem is "mobile only" design.
PCs and Laptops exist. They have wide, high resolution screens and precision pointing devices. All relevant technologies support changing the rendering based on the display available to the browser. It's not that hard.
The problem starts when designers ignore these facts, and instead pop giant buttons, zero navbars, hamburger menus, and thin columns with low information density into the Webbrowser running on my PC with a 4k screen and a 120$ laser mouse.
https://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm#sprawl
The problem is "mobile only" design.
PCs and Laptops exist. They have wide, high resolution screens and precision pointing devices. All relevant technologies support changing the rendering based on the display available to the browser. It's not that hard.
The problem starts when designers ignore these facts, and instead pop giant buttons, zero navbars, hamburger menus, and thin columns with low information density into the Webbrowser running on my PC with a 4k screen and a 120$ laser mouse.
https://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm#sprawl
Our UX's are turning into the Hospital Computer scene from Idiocracy[1].
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXzJR7K0wK0
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXzJR7K0wK0
As time goes on that movie becomes more and more of a documentary.
> It's not that hard.
It actually is very hard to design a responsive UX that can handle anything from the smallest smartphone up to ultrawide monitors.
It actually is very hard to design a responsive UX that can handle anything from the smallest smartphone up to ultrawide monitors.
> It actually is very hard
Only when folks try to get fancy. K.I.S.S(illy).
Only when folks try to get fancy. K.I.S.S(illy).
Name a few example sites that kept it simple
Hacker News, old Reddit. Both work fine on both mobile and desktop. (Reddit started breaking features like double tap to zoom though.)
Yes, on a large screen you might have to increase the size. But a mediocre design you can recover from is better then being stuck with some meth addled designer’s unusable one.
Yes, on a large screen you might have to increase the size. But a mediocre design you can recover from is better then being stuck with some meth addled designer’s unusable one.
Hacker News YX could be way better though
Old Reddit doesn't work well on mobile devices at all. While it can scale the user interface, it's designed with a mouse in mind, making everything appear too small. I like using Old Reddit on desktop, but it's not user-friendly on mobile. For example, on HN (Hacker News), it's simpler; there are no images or different-sized icons. Even here sometimes struggle to tap the right links or flags, and I have to manually go to the settings to undo it. I'd prefer this over a poorly optimized mobile UI. However, optimizing the mobile web page would solve these problems.
Rotate your device to landscape and it's fine. I guess part of the problem is sites training everyone not to do that. (Quora's expert designers will happily throw content into the void of the iPhone's notch on landscape, inventing a problem that didn't exist in older designs, despite them having been created before the notch ever came out.)
Rotate isn't good solution it like saying not open site in full screen open it in half screen o is similar to mobile, I use mobile on the go and can't acomodate bad design whit behavior changes you need too change the design, so people can use it whiout needing to change everything.
I find landscape easier to use on mobile. I don’t get the hate for it.
old reddit never figured out how to deal with deeply nested threads without ending up
l
i
k
e
t
h
i
s
l
i
k
e
t
h
i
s
> Hacker News
The links are too close together on a small phone screen and I cannot tap them accurately half the time. This might mean the difference between upvoting/downvoting something, or flagging something instead of clicking on the context option, when I don't mean to.
HN is pretty great when it comes to desktop, though - simple design, no dark patterns, except for maybe the comments with lower score becoming unreadable, which is bad from an accessibility point of view and an odd design choice otherwise.
> old Reddit
Again - by far the best site when compared with the new version, which has bad performance on both desktop Firefox and mobile Firefox; in addition to lots of dark patterns, sometimes refusing you the ability to view a page if you don't sign in, in addition to nagging you to download their app.
It's still bad, though - too zoomed out, can't read anything without zooming in a lot with a phone and when you do, you need to scroll horizontally, which makes reading paragraphs of text a pain. Curiously, they do/did have a version that actually looked okay on phones (i.reddit.com, or something like that), but it doesn't seem to open anymore and redirects to the main site instead.
I think that once you go below ~400px of screen width, designing a decent UI becomes difficult regardless of what you do. It's so much easier to mess around with the meta viewport tag and offer a slightly zoomed out version, but even then you still have the challenge of making something usable across multiple platforms, input methods and so on.
The links are too close together on a small phone screen and I cannot tap them accurately half the time. This might mean the difference between upvoting/downvoting something, or flagging something instead of clicking on the context option, when I don't mean to.
HN is pretty great when it comes to desktop, though - simple design, no dark patterns, except for maybe the comments with lower score becoming unreadable, which is bad from an accessibility point of view and an odd design choice otherwise.
> old Reddit
Again - by far the best site when compared with the new version, which has bad performance on both desktop Firefox and mobile Firefox; in addition to lots of dark patterns, sometimes refusing you the ability to view a page if you don't sign in, in addition to nagging you to download their app.
It's still bad, though - too zoomed out, can't read anything without zooming in a lot with a phone and when you do, you need to scroll horizontally, which makes reading paragraphs of text a pain. Curiously, they do/did have a version that actually looked okay on phones (i.reddit.com, or something like that), but it doesn't seem to open anymore and redirects to the main site instead.
I think that once you go below ~400px of screen width, designing a decent UI becomes difficult regardless of what you do. It's so much easier to mess around with the meta viewport tag and offer a slightly zoomed out version, but even then you still have the challenge of making something usable across multiple platforms, input methods and so on.
I said that they're fine -- which they are -- not that they do every feature the best possible way. In any case where the initial rendering is bad, it's trivially fixable with your existing browser affordances.
On HN, yes, the arrows are small. And you can trivially zoom in whenever you need them to be bigger and more easily select one over the others. This is worlds ahead of mobile-first designs that lock you into one specific view that you can't modify.
As I said in the other comment: "mediocre design you can recover from" is much more pleasant than meth-addled design you're stuck with -- which about sums up HN/old reddit vs typical mobile first.
>It's still bad, though - too zoomed out, can't read anything without zooming in a lot with a phone and when you do,
Huh? New reddit doesn't do that any better, which can fit only a tiny amount of readable text on the screen as well.
On HN, yes, the arrows are small. And you can trivially zoom in whenever you need them to be bigger and more easily select one over the others. This is worlds ahead of mobile-first designs that lock you into one specific view that you can't modify.
As I said in the other comment: "mediocre design you can recover from" is much more pleasant than meth-addled design you're stuck with -- which about sums up HN/old reddit vs typical mobile first.
>It's still bad, though - too zoomed out, can't read anything without zooming in a lot with a phone and when you do,
Huh? New reddit doesn't do that any better, which can fit only a tiny amount of readable text on the screen as well.
In terms of keeping it simple, but having a responsive design that covers mobile/tablet/desktop -- do these count?
https://service-manual.nhs.uk/design-system
https://designsystem.digital.gov
https://service-manual.nhs.uk/design-system
https://designsystem.digital.gov
I don't think so. It's strictly more work than designing a good UI for a single device which is hard enough, and usually more work than designing multiple UIs for different devices no matter.
A smartphone, iPad, and ultrawide monitor demand fundamentally different UX considerations. Generalizing across all of them, and in one codebase, demands a certain expertise or else everyone would be doing it.
A smartphone, iPad, and ultrawide monitor demand fundamentally different UX considerations. Generalizing across all of them, and in one codebase, demands a certain expertise or else everyone would be doing it.
> demands a certain expertise
I don't think it's a question of expertise; it's a question of effort (and cost). So it's a management issue; are we going to put the effort in to support desktops, or are we going to settle for a crap website? Because a website that doesn't support desktop is a crap website.
I don't think it's a question of expertise; it's a question of effort (and cost). So it's a management issue; are we going to put the effort in to support desktops, or are we going to settle for a crap website? Because a website that doesn't support desktop is a crap website.
Expertise properly applied would reduce effort and cost.
I always read that as "keep it simpple; stupid" as in: dont try and make the code too smart. Keep it simple and stupid and leave it readable. I never took it as a value judgement agaist the programmer's intellect.
Users on mobile can’t make their screens that big, and the average users on desktops don’t expect a webpage to work when they resize their browsers that small. Trying to make both work with the same design can have a negative impact on your customers, from both a usability perspective and by increasing page weight.
Instead, my advice is to create individual designs for each, share when it makes sense, but actively diverge when it’s good for your customers. There doesn’t need to be a single version of a page.
Your mileage may vary.
Instead, my advice is to create individual designs for each, share when it makes sense, but actively diverge when it’s good for your customers. There doesn’t need to be a single version of a page.
Your mileage may vary.
There are certainly trade-offs to consider which is one of the reasons UX design demands so much expertise no matter how many HNers dismiss it as some trivial practice (that they, conveniently, never want to do).
Maintaining N versions of your application has costs that aren't necessarily great for your customers either. In my experience it usually cashes out into one version (either mobile or desktop) getting all the support and features while they slowly drip down into the other versions. Meanwhile a responsive design can have the upside of forcing support and feature rollout for all devices simultaneously.
None of this is easy.
Maintaining N versions of your application has costs that aren't necessarily great for your customers either. In my experience it usually cashes out into one version (either mobile or desktop) getting all the support and features while they slowly drip down into the other versions. Meanwhile a responsive design can have the upside of forcing support and feature rollout for all devices simultaneously.
None of this is easy.
You're more than correct.
In practice, working in small and medium organizations, I have met very few UX designers. Instead I have met plenty of graphical designers that know almost nothing about UX design. I've been at places where I - as a backend developer - know more about practical UX design than anyone on the design team.
I think the reason why we have "bad mobile first design with awful desktop UX" is because very few of the people designing these experiences are UX designers.
I was surprised the article didn't highlight the horror show that is Vector22 at Wikipedia, a design so colossally bad that after three years of suck costs the only path to saving face was to make it the default theme for all users: "Mission Accomplished!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vector_2022
In practice, working in small and medium organizations, I have met very few UX designers. Instead I have met plenty of graphical designers that know almost nothing about UX design. I've been at places where I - as a backend developer - know more about practical UX design than anyone on the design team.
I think the reason why we have "bad mobile first design with awful desktop UX" is because very few of the people designing these experiences are UX designers.
I was surprised the article didn't highlight the horror show that is Vector22 at Wikipedia, a design so colossally bad that after three years of suck costs the only path to saving face was to make it the default theme for all users: "Mission Accomplished!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vector_2022
I read that page, then browsed Wikipedia a little on desktop. It's a site that I use very often and I didn't notice anything weird. I could have sworn that it has been the theme of Wikipedia for at least 10 years.
I also checked if I had created some rules for that site in Stylus and uBlock Origin, nothing. For once I'm lucky that a change didn't destroy one of my workflows. One could say that if I didn't notice the transition they could have spared themselves all the work, or one could argue that they performed a perfect job.
Anyway, I get directly to the page I need from Google. I found several threads on Reddit complaining about the change and this one https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/10g2cir/im_prett... I see a different usage pattern "all I had to do was open the site and use the search bar. And then from there it was easy to get to the main page, current events, etc." The home page, current events? I'm sure I never heard about current events before now and about the home page, I know that there is one but the search bar of my browser is closer to Wikipedia's internal pages.
I also checked if I had created some rules for that site in Stylus and uBlock Origin, nothing. For once I'm lucky that a change didn't destroy one of my workflows. One could say that if I didn't notice the transition they could have spared themselves all the work, or one could argue that they performed a perfect job.
Anyway, I get directly to the page I need from Google. I found several threads on Reddit complaining about the change and this one https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/10g2cir/im_prett... I see a different usage pattern "all I had to do was open the site and use the search bar. And then from there it was easy to get to the main page, current events, etc." The home page, current events? I'm sure I never heard about current events before now and about the home page, I know that there is one but the search bar of my browser is closer to Wikipedia's internal pages.
Without going into details about Vector22, it's certainly better today than it was at launch. It still has a very poor floating ToC UX.
Agreed. I had the pleasure to work with talented specialist UX designers early in my careers, and their designs were really fantastic. They also worked really closely with the developers, both to understand the medium they were designing for and as a first line of feedback before things got to real users/clients.
Unfortunately some of the designers I've worked with more recently were primarily graphic designers without a UX background, and actually became an impediment to good design because they were given authority over it despite not really know what they were doing.
I think it's probably an unfortunate consequence of there being more demand for UX designers then there are good UX designers, and simultaneously being a lack of jobs available for graphic designers. And a lot of hiring companies not really understanding what makes a good UX designer.
Unfortunately some of the designers I've worked with more recently were primarily graphic designers without a UX background, and actually became an impediment to good design because they were given authority over it despite not really know what they were doing.
I think it's probably an unfortunate consequence of there being more demand for UX designers then there are good UX designers, and simultaneously being a lack of jobs available for graphic designers. And a lot of hiring companies not really understanding what makes a good UX designer.
Not getting it. They increased readability, by limiting maximum line length! That is a colossally good thing. Surely, that's like a graphic design 101 kind of decision. (It's a design rule that significantly predates "UX").
The issue at hand is that overly long lines reduce reading speed and comprehension of the content[1]. The optimum length for a digital line of text is somewhere between 66 characters per line and 100 characters per line. I personally use the 100cpl rule. For reference, this HN page has ~185 characters per line on my 1920x1080 display at default scaling.
I do actually remember un-minimizing my browser in order to improve the rate at which I could read the text of ur-Wiki pages.
And then they provided an escape for old men shaking their fists at the sky. Given a choice, I would, without hesitation, choose the new design.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_length#:~:text=characters...
The issue at hand is that overly long lines reduce reading speed and comprehension of the content[1]. The optimum length for a digital line of text is somewhere between 66 characters per line and 100 characters per line. I personally use the 100cpl rule. For reference, this HN page has ~185 characters per line on my 1920x1080 display at default scaling.
I do actually remember un-minimizing my browser in order to improve the rate at which I could read the text of ur-Wiki pages.
And then they provided an escape for old men shaking their fists at the sky. Given a choice, I would, without hesitation, choose the new design.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_length#:~:text=characters...
How is Vector2022 bad? Text columns that are 100 words wide is bad desktop UX.
People tend to dismiss UX 'experts' because frequently they end up being the ones who destroy perfectly good interfaces based on trends or similar. The principled ones who adopt a scientific approach are much rarer.
The ones who adopt a scientific approach are by far the worst.
Design is ultimately all about how things ought to be, an act of judgement, meanwhile science is wholly unsuitable for such questions, since it only tells us what is, which following Hume, cannot on its own lead to conclusions about what ought to be.
You get a sort of garbage-in-garbage-out effect if you apply science to a field like design, where it only serves to amplify your own convictions, as what is being fed into the scientific process as unquestioned assumptions inevitably fall out of it as conclusions.
At best you get KPI driven design, which is a vehicle for enshittification, not for building great design.
You get a sort of garbage-in-garbage-out effect if you apply science to a field like design, where it only serves to amplify your own convictions, as what is being fed into the scientific process as unquestioned assumptions inevitably fall out of it as conclusions.
At best you get KPI driven design, which is a vehicle for enshittification, not for building great design.
Can you relate that to specifics from the article? To my (admittedly non-designer) eyes it appears to be a great example of how science can be used to improve design, and I happen to agree with the findings presented, so I'm curious where you see this breaking down.
The tacit assumption being made in the article is that good design shouldn't frustrate the users.
I don't disagree with this, but it's none the less an assumption that went into the study, and likewise a conclusion that fell out of it.
I don't disagree with this, but it's none the less an assumption that went into the study, and likewise a conclusion that fell out of it.
Nobody here is disputing we have values that are not scientific.
> The ones who adopt a scientific approach are by far the worst
I strongly disagree.
Design without considering all of the HCI research that has been done is what you call "garbage-in-garbage-out." We already know how humans perceive information, what makes things salient or invisible, and so on, yet the current design trends completely disregard that with flat UIs and trendy designs that have poor usability.
> At best you get KPI driven design, which is a vehicle for enshittification, not for building great design.
No, you just get trendy design, not usable design.
I strongly disagree.
Design without considering all of the HCI research that has been done is what you call "garbage-in-garbage-out." We already know how humans perceive information, what makes things salient or invisible, and so on, yet the current design trends completely disregard that with flat UIs and trendy designs that have poor usability.
> At best you get KPI driven design, which is a vehicle for enshittification, not for building great design.
No, you just get trendy design, not usable design.
I'm not following. Science gives us good guidance on what works well or will let us achieve our goals, all the time. It's basically the whole point of doing it at all.
I took the poster as meaning UX that considers the results of, and perhaps even performs, actual user testing & observation, to decide what works and what doesn't. Like operating system vendors used to. I'll grant that "scientific" UX that's just incompetent (99% of the time) application of "telemetry" and A/B testing is awful. But that—and the other bad kind that's just trend-following, personal preference, and whatever will get the best reaction in a design presentation meeting full of non-experts—aren't what I understood as being advocated.
The good kind performs & pays attention to science.
I took the poster as meaning UX that considers the results of, and perhaps even performs, actual user testing & observation, to decide what works and what doesn't. Like operating system vendors used to. I'll grant that "scientific" UX that's just incompetent (99% of the time) application of "telemetry" and A/B testing is awful. But that—and the other bad kind that's just trend-following, personal preference, and whatever will get the best reaction in a design presentation meeting full of non-experts—aren't what I understood as being advocated.
The good kind performs & pays attention to science.
What science doesn't give good guidance is how to select those goals in a vacuum. The goals at best end up being a version of someone's personal opinion, since there that's the only form of opinion we have access to.
Any opinions you get out of the scientific method were put in there by the person designing the experiment.
Any opinions you get out of the scientific method were put in there by the person designing the experiment.
The core of science is iteration based on experiment and hypothesis generation. The scientific approach to UX is simply a hypothesis that a UX change is superior, and an experiment with a measure as to whether or not this is true. Yes, of course you can optimise scientifically for user-antagonistic KPI's (no need to invoke Hume, his point is true and also useless) but the alternative to not adopting a scientific approach is literally just opinion which on the whole is far worse (would you want your airline cockpit's UX to be designed based on a designer's opinion, or real scientific approaches to how people process information and intuit controls?). Of course one would take a good designer's opinion over some MBA-ridden process but a good designer is likely intuiting what would be validated by a more scientific approach anyway.
> People tend to dismiss UX 'experts' because frequently they end up being the ones who destroy perfectly good interfaces based on trends or similar.
yep. i guess that reddit hired one of those.
old.reddit.com is awesome and stood the test of time, the new reddit is awful and slow (and i hate it).
yep. i guess that reddit hired one of those.
old.reddit.com is awesome and stood the test of time, the new reddit is awful and slow (and i hate it).
There's two things here.
One, not all Reddit users prefer old.reddit (I do).
Two, Reddit aren't designing for users, they're designing for advertiser's to push adverts at users.
Wrt the second point, this means designers aren't designing to the brief you would give them. Like when engineers design obsolescence into a product (it's purposefully inferior for the end user).
Any idiot can see it's bad user experience to keep forcing a user to a design they don't like, but it's not for UX reasons that they do it. The trick is keeping UX good enough.
One, not all Reddit users prefer old.reddit (I do).
Two, Reddit aren't designing for users, they're designing for advertiser's to push adverts at users.
Wrt the second point, this means designers aren't designing to the brief you would give them. Like when engineers design obsolescence into a product (it's purposefully inferior for the end user).
Any idiot can see it's bad user experience to keep forcing a user to a design they don't like, but it's not for UX reasons that they do it. The trick is keeping UX good enough.
> Wrt the second point, this means designers aren't designing to the brief you would give them.
To extend that: note that the very companies that spend most money on UI, that hire the experts and pay them well, that set the trends for entire field of UX - are all companies whose primary business is user abuse - advertising, high engagement, etc. That's what they pay the UI/UX experts to optimize for, and that's what ends up leaking into the wider field - leading astray people who are trying to build things beneficial to their users/customers.
To extend that: note that the very companies that spend most money on UI, that hire the experts and pay them well, that set the trends for entire field of UX - are all companies whose primary business is user abuse - advertising, high engagement, etc. That's what they pay the UI/UX experts to optimize for, and that's what ends up leaking into the wider field - leading astray people who are trying to build things beneficial to their users/customers.
A great recent example is the Slack redesign that didn't improve any user flows and lowers the information density. And that activity badge with sticky notifications. (Shift + ESC is your friend here.)
You can’t even exit a search. And god forbid you click a notification while doing a search and have to click “back” 500 times to get to a useable interface.
I don't think it is an issue of "scientific" versus "unscientific"
It's really an issue that many UX designers don't know how browser rendering works, so they design static pages as if they were printing in a magazine.
Pixel perfect mocks are terrible for designing responsive UIs. Trying to build pixel perfect pages in a browser is impossible. Somehow these designers get through school with zero understanding that designing for web is different from designing for print.
It's really an issue that many UX designers don't know how browser rendering works, so they design static pages as if they were printing in a magazine.
Pixel perfect mocks are terrible for designing responsive UIs. Trying to build pixel perfect pages in a browser is impossible. Somehow these designers get through school with zero understanding that designing for web is different from designing for print.
It's 2023, I don't think that's really the case any more. If anything, designing for print is now the part of the discipline that has to suffer through "web-isms".
The reality is just that designers gonna design - and designing is often an unscientific craft, pursuing aesthetic values before practical considerations. Google and Apple designers are well-paid and experienced web-heads, and still they led us into a land of well-padded desperation.
The reality is just that designers gonna design - and designing is often an unscientific craft, pursuing aesthetic values before practical considerations. Google and Apple designers are well-paid and experienced web-heads, and still they led us into a land of well-padded desperation.
It's 2023 and I am still explaining how responsive design works to new design grads that my company just hired so there's definitely some failure somewhere.
Huge engineering cost though. If most of your customers are on mobile, makes sense to optimize for mobile, and hope its "good enough" on desktop.
At the end of the day its all an ROI problem (as are most things)
At the end of the day its all an ROI problem (as are most things)
[deleted]
The cost need not be huge. Most of the costs should be content, and just the theme is different. However even ignoring that, two themes can be hard if you do them independently. However often only a few changes to one theme are needed to become acceptable, and that is good enough. This in turns means you can limit costs: spend 1 week on making a good desktop theme will already make a big difference as you get the worst offenders fixed.
From an SSR perspective this seems rather hard. How do you correctly identify the user's device at serve time?
People say SSR like it's a new concept, but this was how it worked for a long time.
Guess based on user agent (or other fingerprinting metric of choice), redirect to guessed site, provide user the option to override when the page appears, remember the choice in cookie (or local storage).
Though personally I think you can do a lot with responsive CSS if you try hard enough - that is my preferred option.
Guess based on user agent (or other fingerprinting metric of choice), redirect to guessed site, provide user the option to override when the page appears, remember the choice in cookie (or local storage).
Though personally I think you can do a lot with responsive CSS if you try hard enough - that is my preferred option.
> redirect to guessed site
I always wondered about that. What's the point of redirecting instead of serving a different template on the same URL?
I always wondered about that. What's the point of redirecting instead of serving a different template on the same URL?
That works, you'd just have to put the setting in a cookie rather than local storage.
Why? If you can detect mobile user-agents on the first page load, can't you do it in the next page loads too?
Devices should be truthful in the type of content they request. If your phone somehow tells my website that it’s a tablet or a laptop then you should reconsider the intelligence of who has developed your software
My phone often does tell remote sites it is a desktop because as bad as the desktop experience is, often that is the only way to get at something. (I don't want an app for my doctors office - I check it after my yearly physical and the rest of the time it takes up space I could use for another picture)
Does it do that automatically or does it have an option?
> Devices should be truthful in the type of content they request.
I think that websites should assume that devices are being truthful. I should be able to request the desktop view on my phone or request the mobile view on my computer. The former I can do sometimes, the latter I can only do with developer tools (and usually doesn't work because the website detects that I'm on desktop!). Browsers could add a header to switch to the mode in which the website dynamically readjusts based on actual device parameters like window size, but by default I need the view to be what I requested regardless of my window size and device type.
You know how Wikipedia has no table of contents on mobile? I made my browser request the desktop site by default so that I could see the table of contents and don't have to tap to open the article sections. (Unfortunately, Wikipedia changed its desktop view UI by moving the table of contents into a hamburger button. On mobile the desktop view forces me to tap the hamburger button to view a blocking popout of the table of contents, while on desktop the contents are automatically opened in a sidebar.) If Wikipedia had forced a dynamic design on me to restrict me to the mobile view on mobile, then I would've wasted time opening article sections to decide whether I wanted to open them in the first place.
I think that websites should assume that devices are being truthful. I should be able to request the desktop view on my phone or request the mobile view on my computer. The former I can do sometimes, the latter I can only do with developer tools (and usually doesn't work because the website detects that I'm on desktop!). Browsers could add a header to switch to the mode in which the website dynamically readjusts based on actual device parameters like window size, but by default I need the view to be what I requested regardless of my window size and device type.
You know how Wikipedia has no table of contents on mobile? I made my browser request the desktop site by default so that I could see the table of contents and don't have to tap to open the article sections. (Unfortunately, Wikipedia changed its desktop view UI by moving the table of contents into a hamburger button. On mobile the desktop view forces me to tap the hamburger button to view a blocking popout of the table of contents, while on desktop the contents are automatically opened in a sidebar.) If Wikipedia had forced a dynamic design on me to restrict me to the mobile view on mobile, then I would've wasted time opening article sections to decide whether I wanted to open them in the first place.
If you can't, give me at least a choice
One problem with two separate designs is deciding when to show one vs. the other. This gets especially tricky when people share links. Wikipedia, for example, has two different URL's: one for mobile and one for desktop. How often do you get links to the mobile version instead of the other?
And if you keep the URL the same but serve different output depending on the browser, then you get inconsistent behaviour between two different devices.
Nailing the UX for mobile and desktop is actually pretty damn hard.
And if you keep the URL the same but serve different output depending on the browser, then you get inconsistent behaviour between two different devices.
Nailing the UX for mobile and desktop is actually pretty damn hard.
You can request the desktop site on mobile, though
> Users on mobile can’t make their screens that big
I can connect my Librem 5 phone to a screen/keyboard and I get a full desktop.
I can connect my Librem 5 phone to a screen/keyboard and I get a full desktop.
It's not mobile when it's connected to a screen / keyboard is it?
It's never mobile: It runs a desktop GNU/Linux. Dedicated apps are convergent, i.e., automatically change depending on the screen size: https://puri.sm/posts/converging-on-convergence-pureos-is-co...
I split my laptop screen vertical with usually a browser on either side. Occasionally a web page will render itself as if on mobile because it thinks I'm on a narrower screen.
I agree with comment above that it is very hard to make one website responsive to multiple screen sizes.
I agree with comment above that it is very hard to make one website responsive to multiple screen sizes.
Except you are on a narrower screen. Sounds like correct functionality to me.
I think you're trying to make a very nuanced point, and I tend to agree that there are different needs for different viewport sizes. But I think it's important to note the difference between the design and the technology to build it. The technology should, IMO, as much as possible, seamlessly switch between the various layouts when it makes sense from a viewport size perspective. Definitely don't want, IMO, to deliver completely different sites based on device type/site from a technological point of view, we've tried that before and it isn't a good idea.
I also think one of the things good designers do is to take this into account, and make pages that are built up of components that work at various sizes, not just scaled up from mobile. In addition, a good designer will setup the page design such that it can scale up and down nicely from one viewport size to another.
So, while I don't 100% agree that you need "individual" designs for each, I do think you need a designer that takes the different viewport sizes into account and provides the appropriate adjustments for each. And developers that are skilled at then building those pages.
I also think one of the things good designers do is to take this into account, and make pages that are built up of components that work at various sizes, not just scaled up from mobile. In addition, a good designer will setup the page design such that it can scale up and down nicely from one viewport size to another.
So, while I don't 100% agree that you need "individual" designs for each, I do think you need a designer that takes the different viewport sizes into account and provides the appropriate adjustments for each. And developers that are skilled at then building those pages.
It's very hard for many designers and others to get their head around it, sure.
But I think a lot of the challenge is using pixel perfect static mockups drawn in some design tool.
It would be faster to have a napkin sketch and work with UI dev and figure out the cascading and wrapping at design time.
But I think a lot of the challenge is using pixel perfect static mockups drawn in some design tool.
It would be faster to have a napkin sketch and work with UI dev and figure out the cascading and wrapping at design time.
Figma has responsive design and reflow tools built in these days.
Not really. No media queries, no percent widths or non-pixel units, no margins (everything is padding or gap), no viewport units, etc.
I'm a CSS person who works in Figma every day and Figma absolutely sucks for responsive design and handoff to devs.
I wish I could just design in Framer or Webflow but those tools while being Figma-like are entirely catered to content websites and not to product design.
Design tools should render with HTML and CSS, not make the mistake Figma made in creating their own rendering engine they have to painstakingly recreate CSS from scratch with.
I'm a CSS person who works in Figma every day and Figma absolutely sucks for responsive design and handoff to devs.
I wish I could just design in Framer or Webflow but those tools while being Figma-like are entirely catered to content websites and not to product design.
Design tools should render with HTML and CSS, not make the mistake Figma made in creating their own rendering engine they have to painstakingly recreate CSS from scratch with.
[deleted]
> It actually is very hard to design a responsive UX that can handle anything from the smallest smartphone up to ultrawide monitors.
A motherfucking website made with plain html, no css and no javascript is responsive and works everywhere. Any problems found when you go beyond this are entirely self-inflicted.
A motherfucking website made with plain html, no css and no javascript is responsive and works everywhere. Any problems found when you go beyond this are entirely self-inflicted.
And that website does nothing. It’s just text, and it has one image that’s too small on a mobile view.
Now try to do the same thing with a complex app like your bank’s website, which needs to handle every type of account including credit cards, checking accounts, and investment accounts, rewards, and a travel/shopping portal.
Now try to do the same thing with a complex app like your bank’s website, which needs to handle every type of account including credit cards, checking accounts, and investment accounts, rewards, and a travel/shopping portal.
> And that website does nothing. It’s just text, and it has one image
Which is pretty much what 99% of websites need to be able to display. That includes many sub-sections of web applications.
> Now try to do the same thing with a complex app like your bank’s website
Fun story, my bank has a website that works great on both my phone and my PC. On the one I can navigate it fully with one thumb, on the other it is information-dense and respects that I have a high precision pointing device available. They also offer different Apps for Phone and Desktop.
Which is pretty much what 99% of websites need to be able to display. That includes many sub-sections of web applications.
> Now try to do the same thing with a complex app like your bank’s website
Fun story, my bank has a website that works great on both my phone and my PC. On the one I can navigate it fully with one thumb, on the other it is information-dense and respects that I have a high precision pointing device available. They also offer different Apps for Phone and Desktop.
9 of the top 20 most visited websites primarily deal in video and multimedia. I disagree that “99%” of websites “just need text.”
Those are the outliers, and winner-take-all ones to boot - they ate most other websites that "primarily deal in video and multimedia". Everything else deals primarily with text.
So what you’re saying is that the websites with the fancy videos and interactive content ate all the text-based websites, but that the customer is wrong and they’re going to the wrong websites?
Sounds like you’re the right person to convince everyone to buy cars with manual transmissions and crank windows. After all, they are more reliable and simple, and everyone is wrong for not buying them anymore.
I’d also like to know how you expect all of our serious business productivity apps to work as text-only or server-side rendered plain HTML web pages without being seriously compromised. Google Docs/Sheets/Slides? Jira? Google Meet? draw.io? Tableau? PowerBI? Gong? Notion? Slack? AWS Console? I honestly don’t even know how I would avoid getting fired if I only used text-only websites.
Sounds like you’re the right person to convince everyone to buy cars with manual transmissions and crank windows. After all, they are more reliable and simple, and everyone is wrong for not buying them anymore.
I’d also like to know how you expect all of our serious business productivity apps to work as text-only or server-side rendered plain HTML web pages without being seriously compromised. Google Docs/Sheets/Slides? Jira? Google Meet? draw.io? Tableau? PowerBI? Gong? Notion? Slack? AWS Console? I honestly don’t even know how I would avoid getting fired if I only used text-only websites.
> So what you’re saying is that the websites with the fancy videos and interactive content ate all the text-based websites, but that the customer is wrong and they’re going to the wrong websites?
No. I'm saying that there are only few websites that "primarily deal in video and multimedia". They may take 9 spots in a top 20 list, but that 9 is like half of all such websites. The rest deal primarily with text (which includes formatted, rich text).
No. I'm saying that there are only few websites that "primarily deal in video and multimedia". They may take 9 spots in a top 20 list, but that 9 is like half of all such websites. The rest deal primarily with text (which includes formatted, rich text).
A bank is a bad example. The only thing we use bank websites for is to check our transactions and transfer money.
My business checking account has started offering partner promotions from the transfer screen and I’m tempted to switch to another bank because of it. Their developers and designers were tasked with delivering that component. At the same time they took away their mobile app and mobile check deposit because it was not secured properly.
Most bank websites and apps are examples of teams and organizations focusing on the wrong thing in my opinion.
My business checking account has started offering partner promotions from the transfer screen and I’m tempted to switch to another bank because of it. Their developers and designers were tasked with delivering that component. At the same time they took away their mobile app and mobile check deposit because it was not secured properly.
Most bank websites and apps are examples of teams and organizations focusing on the wrong thing in my opinion.
Banks are basically the ideal "this is just text, tables, and forms" website that html 4 was perfect for.
A text column the whole width of your screen is readable on phones and tablets (portrait) but unreadable on notebooks and desktops. So columns are necessary… Also firm design usually is better if labels and fields are inlined. That’s just the beginning… you can’t avoid design decisions even if you want to favor functionality and content over form.
Really? On every team I've worked since the media query and bootstrap days, it's been normal to have a mobile, tablet, and desktop version at least. Tiny phone and ultrawide were bonuses, but having at least the basic three meant a somewhat usable experience for everyone.
These days it's even easier with MUI and similar UI libs that have responsive components built-in. Tailwind also makes it very easy to build your own.
These days it's even easier with MUI and similar UI libs that have responsive components built-in. Tailwind also makes it very easy to build your own.
It’s going to get even easier once container queries are widely deployed (if they’re not already).
We’ll be able to design components to scale to their parent instead of screen size, making them much more generic.
We’ll be able to design components to scale to their parent instead of screen size, making them much more generic.
Technically, that's correct (which means it's the best kind of correct).
But... I'd add that doing that well isn't easy. I frequently find cases where the mobile version simply removes features the desktop version has. And tablet version are very very rare. They tend to be either just the desktop or mobile version. Rarely is someone designing for tablet.
And that makes sense. Designing 3 different sites to all be the same feature-wise isn't trivial. Then you throw mobile apps on top of it, and suddenly it becomes much harder.
Can it be done? Sure. But I wouldn't say it's trivial to do it well.
But... I'd add that doing that well isn't easy. I frequently find cases where the mobile version simply removes features the desktop version has. And tablet version are very very rare. They tend to be either just the desktop or mobile version. Rarely is someone designing for tablet.
And that makes sense. Designing 3 different sites to all be the same feature-wise isn't trivial. Then you throw mobile apps on top of it, and suddenly it becomes much harder.
Can it be done? Sure. But I wouldn't say it's trivial to do it well.
>> It actually is very hard to design a responsive UX that can handle anything from the smallest smartphone up to ultrawide monitors.
Sure I'll agree it's hard, but don't web designers do their work on desktop machines? It seems like even if they are primarily targeting mobile, they must see the results on desktop right? There have to be some known strategies for dealing with it, and they must be aware of the problems. Right?
Sure I'll agree it's hard, but don't web designers do their work on desktop machines? It seems like even if they are primarily targeting mobile, they must see the results on desktop right? There have to be some known strategies for dealing with it, and they must be aware of the problems. Right?
Even if we go with the "is not that hard" narrative, is for sure damn laborious. Also let's not pretend that all the intermediate sizes aren't also a requirement as the dynamic adaptation from one to another medium being zero effort in order to "just work".
Is it? CSS Grid and flexbox exist. What I do is design at the smallest screen size first (mobile first), then increase the screen size until it looks bad/breaks, then I set a breakpoint and use CSS to adjust things as needed. Rinse and repeat as many times as needed until it looks good at all screen sizes. It really is not difficult if you know what you are doing.
If you're designing a website to work on the smallest smartphone to ultra wide monitors you need to work on a more serious quality management strategy.
>It actually is very hard to design a responsive UX that can handle anything from the smallest smartphone up to ultrawide monitors.
Maybe the real solution is to treat a wide monitor as multiple mobile screens side-by-side. That is you give your user N-views into your app with no other coupling between them, almost like browser tabs. It sounds silly but I could think of worse solutions. Note: N would be equal to floor(laptop-width/mobile-width).
Maybe the real solution is to treat a wide monitor as multiple mobile screens side-by-side. That is you give your user N-views into your app with no other coupling between them, almost like browser tabs. It sounds silly but I could think of worse solutions. Note: N would be equal to floor(laptop-width/mobile-width).
TweetDeck is an example of this.
At least make one mobile and one desktop view.
It's strange that I have to scroll horizontally to view source code and at the same time 2/3 of my screen is empty.
It's strange that I have to scroll horizontally to view source code and at the same time 2/3 of my screen is empty.
A tiny company called Purism did it, so it can't be that hard: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19328085
I'm sorry, if Wix and SquareSpace can figure it out for their templates, a site with dedicated UX designers should be able to figure it out, too. The smartphone is 15 years old, designers know what to expect.
The problem isn’t UX Designers figuring it out, it’s managers not wanting to spend time designing different breakpoints because they want the site delivered ASAP.
A lot of bad UX decisions come from bad management, not necessarily bad designers.
A lot of bad UX decisions come from bad management, not necessarily bad designers.
It isn't that hard if you know anything about modern CSS. Sure, for some people that hate writing front-end code, it's going to be a real pain. But for anyone that focuses on front-end, it really shouldn't be difficult at all.
I would disagree with "very" hard.
We don't have to touch every class of device with our B2B product, but we do have to support desktop/tablet/etc. We decided to make a tradeoff in terms of aesthetics and keep the overall design as simple as possible. When you don't plan to test the dimensions between iPhone and iPad or concern yourself with foldable/esoteric devices, you should probably not get too elaborate with your design language.
Our app has 1 simple breakpoint @ 960px. Below this, we assume we are on smartphone and run with one column layouts. Above, we display the full width view. We combine the media query with CSS grid layouts to swap between modes. The specific number was chosen to allow full-size presentation in side-by-side window arrangement on a 1080p desktop (our most typical power user scenario).
Again, we are B2B and only have to tolerate US audiences. So, we have the ability to get away with far more than developers who have to polish B2C experiences with international audiences.
If I had to do B2C web properties and ideally support as many devices as possible, I would be more amenable to that adjective. Otherwise, I would say it is a normal amount of "hard".
We don't have to touch every class of device with our B2B product, but we do have to support desktop/tablet/etc. We decided to make a tradeoff in terms of aesthetics and keep the overall design as simple as possible. When you don't plan to test the dimensions between iPhone and iPad or concern yourself with foldable/esoteric devices, you should probably not get too elaborate with your design language.
Our app has 1 simple breakpoint @ 960px. Below this, we assume we are on smartphone and run with one column layouts. Above, we display the full width view. We combine the media query with CSS grid layouts to swap between modes. The specific number was chosen to allow full-size presentation in side-by-side window arrangement on a 1080p desktop (our most typical power user scenario).
Again, we are B2B and only have to tolerate US audiences. So, we have the ability to get away with far more than developers who have to polish B2C experiences with international audiences.
If I had to do B2C web properties and ideally support as many devices as possible, I would be more amenable to that adjective. Otherwise, I would say it is a normal amount of "hard".
But does the desktop version get more functionality?
Same effective functionality between touch-enabled and desktop devices. The main differences are in certain edges. For example, on devices with integrated cameras we present extra options for acquiring photos whereas on the desktop w/out camera, you get a file/browse option instead. 90%+ of the javascript in our app is used to normalize device-specific I/O quirks. The rest is to do things like disable form elements when the form is submitted.
And costly in dev and support.
Not to mention the market for this target is shrinking so much compared to mobile it's easy to understand how the choice is made.
Not to mention the market for this target is shrinking so much compared to mobile it's easy to understand how the choice is made.
I'm sure the people who complain aren't the ones with the smallest smartphones or the ones with ultrawide monitors with a maximised window.
Just as an example - Look at Google Drive in a regular laptop / desktop browser. All the relevant and frequently used actions are behind menus and icons.
Just as an example - Look at Google Drive in a regular laptop / desktop browser. All the relevant and frequently used actions are behind menus and icons.
The entire point is you don't have to design one UX for both kinds of devices. The screen resolution is an OK proxy but there's buttons in every mobile browser for requesting the desktop site so obviously there's more reliable ways to tell the webserver which kind of device is requesting the site.
> https://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm#sprawl
And this site quite fittingly has one narrow and centered column with huge left and right gaps.
Otherwise I think the majority of windows laptops now have touch screens, so while they still have a pointer based input most of the time, touch friendly design is an advantage for the majority of the users.
It would be nice to have specific dedicated designs for all cases, but I am sympathetic with how much of a challenge that is.
And this site quite fittingly has one narrow and centered column with huge left and right gaps.
Otherwise I think the majority of windows laptops now have touch screens, so while they still have a pointer based input most of the time, touch friendly design is an advantage for the majority of the users.
It would be nice to have specific dedicated designs for all cases, but I am sympathetic with how much of a challenge that is.
Not trying to detract from your point, and maybe I’m “out of touch” but I don’t see hardly anyone but a rare few folks actually using touch screen laptops.
I see many people with laptops, but other than one person I know who exclusively buys Microsoft Surface laptops, the average laptop user I know is just typing and clicking away like normal.
How many folks actively go looking for touch in their laptop? I keep hearing about it on YouTube reviews, but even in families with kids, the kids don’t even use the touch features even if the laptop supposedly has it.
I’m just amazed how much “touch on laptop” comes up and I quite literally never see it in reality.
I see many people with laptops, but other than one person I know who exclusively buys Microsoft Surface laptops, the average laptop user I know is just typing and clicking away like normal.
How many folks actively go looking for touch in their laptop? I keep hearing about it on YouTube reviews, but even in families with kids, the kids don’t even use the touch features even if the laptop supposedly has it.
I’m just amazed how much “touch on laptop” comes up and I quite literally never see it in reality.
Well.. I've been using touch on my laptops since the start. My current laptop is a mini asus "tablet pc" with detachable keyboard. When I'm just web browsing I detach the keyboard and use touch. But even on normal laptops I got from work I'd prefer touch for many things like scrolling over the built in touchpad.
Especially when I'm using the laptop as a portable device on my lap, in a plane or on a bus.
I have to admit I don't use touchscreens that much when I can put a laptop on top of a desk. But when I'm sitting at a desk I much prefer a desktop pc.
Especially when I'm using the laptop as a portable device on my lap, in a plane or on a bus.
I have to admit I don't use touchscreens that much when I can put a laptop on top of a desk. But when I'm sitting at a desk I much prefer a desktop pc.
I mostly use an iPad when i don’t need a keyboard, especially when sitting on a couch (typing this on my iPad).
I noticed that as soon as I pair the iPad with a Bluetooth keyboard, and an external display, I’ll also use my mouse to navigate.
So, even for a touch first device like an iPad, when using a keyboard, touch is not the best way to navigate.
I noticed that as soon as I pair the iPad with a Bluetooth keyboard, and an external display, I’ll also use my mouse to navigate.
So, even for a touch first device like an iPad, when using a keyboard, touch is not the best way to navigate.
It doesn't need to be the best though, just needs to be good enough for specific use cases. Same way pen support on the iPad is great, though not everyone will use it extensively nor have it as their best way to do anything.
I have actively gone looking for a way to disable the touchscreen on my laptop, because I explicitly never intend to use it - who wants to look at smudgy fingerprints? It only gets activated by accident and I'd rather not have it at all.
Yes, that option is need on all inputs really.
I know some disable the touchpad to not have to bother with palm rejection and accidental touches at all. Same for shitting off mouse input when the touchpad is used. And so many other combinations.
I know some disable the touchpad to not have to bother with palm rejection and accidental touches at all. Same for shitting off mouse input when the touchpad is used. And so many other combinations.
In uni, a couple students had those tablet/laptop reverse foldable devices as a fancy notepad, used with a stylus.
Started uni recently. My friends have those. They don’t have or use a mouse. All they use is touchpad and the touchscreen. Well, to be honest, a lot of them don’t have a touchscreen yet still don’t use a mouse.
I saw it a bunch with family members. They're not using touch as a primary interface, but more as an alternative to click a button in the middle of the screen or select stuff on the laptop screen wen their mouse is on their external display. I'd suspect there's many "occasional touch" users, in particular on laptops where the trackpad is not great.
But yes, people going full hog on touch usually have Surface pro or Yoga like devices in the first place and won't be an average user. And people used to point fingers at their screens tend to hate it now that it actually reacts.
But yes, people going full hog on touch usually have Surface pro or Yoga like devices in the first place and won't be an average user. And people used to point fingers at their screens tend to hate it now that it actually reacts.
[deleted]
Most Windows laptops definitely do not have touch screens, and most(?) users also tend to use a desktop monitor most of the time (the only ergonomic choice).
> Otherwise I think the majority of windows laptops now have touch screens
a) I would be really interested in the reasoning behind that opinion
b) Even if a laptops screen is touch-capable, it still has a precision pointing device
c) PCs exist, and so do docking stations.
a) I would be really interested in the reasoning behind that opinion
b) Even if a laptops screen is touch-capable, it still has a precision pointing device
c) PCs exist, and so do docking stations.
> The problem starts when designers ignore these facts, and instead pop giant buttons, zero navbars, hamburger menus, and thin columns with low information density into the Webbrowser running on my PC with a 4k screen and a 120$ laser mouse.
And using phones as a 2FA device. A giant, relatively immobile device is a much better 2FA device than something that is easily stolen.
And using phones as a 2FA device. A giant, relatively immobile device is a much better 2FA device than something that is easily stolen.
> 4k screen
Another problem is designers working only on 4K/5K screens and not taking into account how little of their design fits on a FHD screen that a major part of the desktop population still uses.
Another problem is designers working only on 4K/5K screens and not taking into account how little of their design fits on a FHD screen that a major part of the desktop population still uses.
Yep, I see this in both directions. People are still of the mindset that "desktop" means a single resolution and aspect ratio that everyone uses. That wasn't really the case in the past, but it's really not the case today.
- On Linux, the assumption is that everyone has a 1920x1080 monitor, so if you get a high resolution 13-inch device like a Surface suddenly half of the apps are unusable because everything is scaled so tiny, and the apps literally just do not know how to handle the aspect ratio.
- On Web and in popular design studios, the assumption is that everyone has a full 4K mac and so everything becomes larger and spread apart; you load them up on a normal monitor and everything becomes cluttered and the interface of the app starts taking up more room than the content you're looking at.
Test your apps on multiple resolutions y'all, and for the love of everything that is holy if you're designing a desktop app, please add button density and font size controls to your settings. Some weirdos like me even use multiple monitors of different resolutions and pixel densities hooked up to the same computer at the same time, so being able to adjust on the fly or handle fractional scaling is kind of a big deal for apps that I use. Standard resolutions are a myth.
- On Linux, the assumption is that everyone has a 1920x1080 monitor, so if you get a high resolution 13-inch device like a Surface suddenly half of the apps are unusable because everything is scaled so tiny, and the apps literally just do not know how to handle the aspect ratio.
- On Web and in popular design studios, the assumption is that everyone has a full 4K mac and so everything becomes larger and spread apart; you load them up on a normal monitor and everything becomes cluttered and the interface of the app starts taking up more room than the content you're looking at.
Test your apps on multiple resolutions y'all, and for the love of everything that is holy if you're designing a desktop app, please add button density and font size controls to your settings. Some weirdos like me even use multiple monitors of different resolutions and pixel densities hooked up to the same computer at the same time, so being able to adjust on the fly or handle fractional scaling is kind of a big deal for apps that I use. Standard resolutions are a myth.
Caring so much about screen resolution has always seemed strange to me when not everyone maximizes their browser window, anyway. My browser windows are generally close to square.
I think that differing device resolutions and aspect ratios in some ways forced designers to think about things that were always worth thinking about but were easier to ignore. I use a tiled window manager, I care about whether your desktop site is responsive even at minimal widths because I tile windows. I also have a touchscreen monitor hooked up to my desktop and I like to be able to use it. And sometimes I also full-screen windows on a 32-inch screen and use a mouse-and-keyboard. If a desktop site accommodates me in all of those scenarios, it'll probably be fine on a phone as well.
But it was so easy in the past to just ignore that and treat PCs like they were uniform devices used in a uniform way, and phones meant that you suddenly had to care about what a website looked like in a single-column view, you couldn't just tell your users to maximize the browser window. Unfortunately, rather than taking away the lesson that design should adjust to nonstandard situations, layouts, and input-modes that can not be fully predicted or tested for in advance -- instead developers took away the lesson "okay, now there are two standard devices we have to support: mobile and desktop."
The distinction isn't real, there is no hard line between a desktop and a mobile site. There are mobile tablets that are big enough that they should be served a desktop layout, there are desktops with touchscreen displays, there are monitors that are 3/4 ratios. And there never was a standard and computers were always like that, but it's an understated truth that every developer and every designer would secretly love to develop exclusively for consoles with integrated screens and one input method, and developers often kind of behind-the-scenes somewhat resent the fact that general computing is an open ecosystem with diverse devices. So designers often just treat computers like they have two completely discrete interfaces, or at worst decide that because they're not targeting one of them that they now have permission to target exactly one resolution and size again.
Sometimes that takes the form of designing "mobile only" like the top-level comment talks about and calling desktops a dead platform. Sometimes it means designing desktop only and getting mad that somebody flipped their monitor vertically instead of horizontally and now wants the ability to move a side-drawer to the bottom of the screen.
But it was so easy in the past to just ignore that and treat PCs like they were uniform devices used in a uniform way, and phones meant that you suddenly had to care about what a website looked like in a single-column view, you couldn't just tell your users to maximize the browser window. Unfortunately, rather than taking away the lesson that design should adjust to nonstandard situations, layouts, and input-modes that can not be fully predicted or tested for in advance -- instead developers took away the lesson "okay, now there are two standard devices we have to support: mobile and desktop."
The distinction isn't real, there is no hard line between a desktop and a mobile site. There are mobile tablets that are big enough that they should be served a desktop layout, there are desktops with touchscreen displays, there are monitors that are 3/4 ratios. And there never was a standard and computers were always like that, but it's an understated truth that every developer and every designer would secretly love to develop exclusively for consoles with integrated screens and one input method, and developers often kind of behind-the-scenes somewhat resent the fact that general computing is an open ecosystem with diverse devices. So designers often just treat computers like they have two completely discrete interfaces, or at worst decide that because they're not targeting one of them that they now have permission to target exactly one resolution and size again.
Sometimes that takes the form of designing "mobile only" like the top-level comment talks about and calling desktops a dead platform. Sometimes it means designing desktop only and getting mad that somebody flipped their monitor vertically instead of horizontally and now wants the ability to move a side-drawer to the bottom of the screen.
> The problem is "mobile only" design.
Agree.
Actually, I think what happens is that the team adopts a "mobile-first" policy, which is reasonable, since most visitors wil be mobile. But they don't follow through with the "desktop-after" corollary, and they don't engage with the "progressive enhancement" philosophy, because that gets even more costly than simply having two websites.
I find phones impossible to use as web browsers. My eyesight is too poor, and my thumbs are too fat. I use phones for making phone-calls and for trading SMS messages; if I need a website, I use my laptop. But that's just me.
I think the real problem is that mobile phones make awful platforms for browsing websites. Native checkboxes and native select-boxes are often unusable, so developers use "frameworks" <spit> that replace them with Javascript monstrosities. Because that all depends on plugins and code, each website ends up with it's own idiosyncratic UX.
I think the correct solution is for phone makers to deliver platforms that can render HTML so it's useable. Then the only problem for devs is create responsive layouts, which isn't that hard.
Agree.
Actually, I think what happens is that the team adopts a "mobile-first" policy, which is reasonable, since most visitors wil be mobile. But they don't follow through with the "desktop-after" corollary, and they don't engage with the "progressive enhancement" philosophy, because that gets even more costly than simply having two websites.
I find phones impossible to use as web browsers. My eyesight is too poor, and my thumbs are too fat. I use phones for making phone-calls and for trading SMS messages; if I need a website, I use my laptop. But that's just me.
I think the real problem is that mobile phones make awful platforms for browsing websites. Native checkboxes and native select-boxes are often unusable, so developers use "frameworks" <spit> that replace them with Javascript monstrosities. Because that all depends on plugins and code, each website ends up with it's own idiosyncratic UX.
I think the correct solution is for phone makers to deliver platforms that can render HTML so it's useable. Then the only problem for devs is create responsive layouts, which isn't that hard.
Designers usually not the problem here. Most are well aware that rendering should change between different types of devices and displays, they use these website and devices too!
The problem usually is the resources and time available to implement such designs. Most of the time the devs simply don't have the time, desire, or even ability to implement more advanced responsive design, so designers will design what will actually get made.
The problem usually is the resources and time available to implement such designs. Most of the time the devs simply don't have the time, desire, or even ability to implement more advanced responsive design, so designers will design what will actually get made.
It takes maybe 2 hours for someone experienced to turn a desktop layout into a mobile responsive layout for all screen sizes using media queries. Longer than that usually means less experience.
Sure for a content-site template, blog, or something else fairly basic. This is not at all the case for things like art-directed super-custom designed sites like magazines, fashion brands, museums, etc, OR highly complex interactive SAAS web apps like the ones I work on. These have lots of unique considerations like complex animations, layered menus and controls, optimizing for change from mouse to touch interactions, handling the higher rate of people who use zoomed text on mobile devices, adapting to device safe areas in portrait and landscape, etc.
I am a designer and HTML/CSS coder so I am aware of the challenges from both directions.
I am a designer and HTML/CSS coder so I am aware of the challenges from both directions.
Your use case sounds very much like an edge-case in websites. Of course highly customized animations and weird out-of-the-ordinary UI elements are going to be an extra pain in the ass. I have no doubt there are customer requests that simply can't be fulfilled with HTML and have to be done in WebGL. The fact is, most sites are "fairly basic" and only really need HTML, CSS, and a little javascript to accommodate the vast majority of use cases. I'm glad you're doing complicated things, but that doesn't change the reality of most web developers.
It isn't an edge case in the SAAS world, it's just that the majority of SAAS tools either don't implement mobile, or don't do it well. Every single SAAS company I have worked for in the last decade has had complex web apps that required very involved HTML and CSS work (and a dash of JS) to get them to work well on mobile. Additionally very few of the front-end or full-stack devs on those teams actually knew HTML/CSS well, they were all React/JS-first.
Sure the majority of websites on the web aren't SAAS tools, but the nuances of mobile vs desktop layout described in this article don't apply so much to such simple content pages.
Sure the majority of websites on the web aren't SAAS tools, but the nuances of mobile vs desktop layout described in this article don't apply so much to such simple content pages.
Most SAAS tools aren't really used on mobile devices. Laptop or desktop is the expected use case. You're still dealing with an edge case if you need to have a "complex" SAAS tool that is mobile friendly.
About 6 years ago, the company [0] that owns most of the local newspapers in my state did a "mobile first" redesign of their website ... which actually was a "mobile ONLY" redesign.
It was so, so bad it was almost totally unusable on anything larger than a tablet. It made it virtually impossible to read articles on a desktop because everything was so spread out, the font sizes were all messed up, navigation was hidden in a tiny little hamburger at the far upper right of the screen, and a bunch of other problems. But what was wild was how easy it was to fix them. I ended up writing a small (maybe 100 line) CSS user style that fixed almost all of the problems.
They did eventually "fix" the site so that it wasn't as bad on desktop.
[0] https://www.al.com/
It was so, so bad it was almost totally unusable on anything larger than a tablet. It made it virtually impossible to read articles on a desktop because everything was so spread out, the font sizes were all messed up, navigation was hidden in a tiny little hamburger at the far upper right of the screen, and a bunch of other problems. But what was wild was how easy it was to fix them. I ended up writing a small (maybe 100 line) CSS user style that fixed almost all of the problems.
They did eventually "fix" the site so that it wasn't as bad on desktop.
[0] https://www.al.com/
100% this. The amount of times I get given a mobile wireframe then subsequently brushed aside when I enquire about desktop is unreal.
Our work flow often ends up: get design > ask for desktop > told to ‘use best judgement’ > uses best judgement > get a load of amends as best judgement wasn’t what the client has in mind > repeat.
Don’t even get me started on the mythical black hole that is the tablet screen. It’s like designers have forgotten that they exist and people use them at times.
Our work flow often ends up: get design > ask for desktop > told to ‘use best judgement’ > uses best judgement > get a load of amends as best judgement wasn’t what the client has in mind > repeat.
Don’t even get me started on the mythical black hole that is the tablet screen. It’s like designers have forgotten that they exist and people use them at times.
> PCs and Laptops exist
But it's a slowly dying market segment. We might be at a point where it's more likely a household as a Chromebook than a PC.
But it's a slowly dying market segment. We might be at a point where it's more likely a household as a Chromebook than a PC.
These days we're actually lucky to get any desktop experience at all. Look at e.g. Instagram Threads. The response to "desktop is hard" and "most users use mobile" is often now "only weirdos use desktop, don't even bother".
I start with desktop layouts, create that, then make it responsive for mobile devices of all sizes. I'm often only given a desktop design for a page, and I'm fine with that.
"Mobile first" is not the right way to approach the problem. I dislike desktop layouts that were obviously "mobile first" and only look like a wider version of a mobile layout. It's just the wrong way to do things.
It's very easy to use media queries to make all the content of a desktop design fit into a mobile layout. I really don't understand the disconnect about this. I manage to get full functionality in both desktop and mobile devices of all sizes, but others cry "mobile first!" like if you don't do it that way, then you're doing it wrong? It's nonsense. "Mobile first" almost always leads to sub-par desktop experiences, and that's a shame.
My favorite challenge is a design meant to be printed on a single page. The page also has to load on desktop and mobile browsers. With the printed page, the content absolutely cannot overflow even though it's dynamic content and could have text of any length, or list items of any length (scaling is used to a point, but often some items must be omitted from the layout). So in this case, it's absolutely "print first", not "mobile first". And yet I manage to make a perfectly good mobile responsive layout and a desktop layout out of a "print first" page.
"Mobile first" is not the right way to approach the problem. I dislike desktop layouts that were obviously "mobile first" and only look like a wider version of a mobile layout. It's just the wrong way to do things.
It's very easy to use media queries to make all the content of a desktop design fit into a mobile layout. I really don't understand the disconnect about this. I manage to get full functionality in both desktop and mobile devices of all sizes, but others cry "mobile first!" like if you don't do it that way, then you're doing it wrong? It's nonsense. "Mobile first" almost always leads to sub-par desktop experiences, and that's a shame.
My favorite challenge is a design meant to be printed on a single page. The page also has to load on desktop and mobile browsers. With the printed page, the content absolutely cannot overflow even though it's dynamic content and could have text of any length, or list items of any length (scaling is used to a point, but often some items must be omitted from the layout). So in this case, it's absolutely "print first", not "mobile first". And yet I manage to make a perfectly good mobile responsive layout and a desktop layout out of a "print first" page.
The reasoning behind mobile-first was exactly what you say is "easy" and I disagree - it is not always "easy" to shrink contents of complex desktop layouts into a mobile one. Mobile first helps figure out the simplest possible version of a design. And whether building mobile first or desktop first isn't really a design choice, that's a development choice, and either way of building a site (as long IMO as you don't mix/match) is equally valid) and the same goal can be accomplished from a technical perspective.
I agree though, that doesn't mean we need dumbed down desktop layouts or scaled up mobile versions, it just means we need to consider both and design accordingly. Mobile first is fine as the starting point, there are a lot of valid points to that design paradigm. But that is just the "first" part, then there are the rest of the parts to account for all viewport sizes.
I agree though, that doesn't mean we need dumbed down desktop layouts or scaled up mobile versions, it just means we need to consider both and design accordingly. Mobile first is fine as the starting point, there are a lot of valid points to that design paradigm. But that is just the "first" part, then there are the rest of the parts to account for all viewport sizes.
hahah, if you think the 4k screen and $120 laser mouse user is what designers are aiming for, you're dreaming. And that won't change.
Mobile is king, second to 13-15 inch laptops.
Mobile is king, second to 13-15 inch laptops.
[deleted]
Hamburgers and Hieroglyphs! Ahhhhhhhhhhh!
I get why they are used on mobile. If you only have room for content, it makes sense to tuck actions away into a hamburger menu except for a small number that you assign to tiny little hieroglyphs. Fine. However, if you have space, this is a terrible way to use it. At best it adds steps, at worst it invites experimentation and disaster to figure out what the heiroglyphs do (which wouldn't be so bad if undo worked but we've apparently decided undo is fine to break too). Like the Apple HIGs used to say, on Desktop you should want to get the most common actions out of menus and onto labeled buttons so that users can answer "what can I do?" without playing hide and seek. Undo should be baked in from the very start (it's hard to retrofit) to reduce the consequences of experimentation.
Unfortunately mobile design has taken over so completely that even on apps which will be used almost entirely on desktop, even on apps with an internal advocate for Desktop design, UI designers go for the hamburgers and heiroglyphs and broken undo because it's standard these days. Sigh.
Oh, and modals are back with a vengeance, but I need to stop here or my blood pressure is going to get unhealthy.
I get why they are used on mobile. If you only have room for content, it makes sense to tuck actions away into a hamburger menu except for a small number that you assign to tiny little hieroglyphs. Fine. However, if you have space, this is a terrible way to use it. At best it adds steps, at worst it invites experimentation and disaster to figure out what the heiroglyphs do (which wouldn't be so bad if undo worked but we've apparently decided undo is fine to break too). Like the Apple HIGs used to say, on Desktop you should want to get the most common actions out of menus and onto labeled buttons so that users can answer "what can I do?" without playing hide and seek. Undo should be baked in from the very start (it's hard to retrofit) to reduce the consequences of experimentation.
Unfortunately mobile design has taken over so completely that even on apps which will be used almost entirely on desktop, even on apps with an internal advocate for Desktop design, UI designers go for the hamburgers and heiroglyphs and broken undo because it's standard these days. Sigh.
Oh, and modals are back with a vengeance, but I need to stop here or my blood pressure is going to get unhealthy.
I don't think there's any excuse for hieroglyphs. Even a low-end 5 year old phone like the moto e4 has a 1280x720 display; there's plenty of pixels available to label the icons. Hieroglyphs are a "we hate our users and want them to know it" first design.
Hamburger menus could also frequently be done away with when you look at how many options they have. Like Gmail's app has them when it could fit the icons across the screen as a bar. And it's hard to argue that real estate was important since they put in a bottom bar for chat, video, and spaces whatever that is.
Hamburger menus could also frequently be done away with when you look at how many options they have. Like Gmail's app has them when it could fit the icons across the screen as a bar. And it's hard to argue that real estate was important since they put in a bottom bar for chat, video, and spaces whatever that is.
[deleted]
I deal with some legacy web apps and ticketing system at work. They could use a hamburger menu or two. 10 buttons, 15 tabs, and a million inputs most people don’t use.
> Hamburger menus could also frequently be done away with when you look at how many options they have. Like Gmail's app has them when it could fit the icons across the screen as a bar.
Just cracked open Gmail to check this. In the hamburger side menu, there's 18 items not even counting labels. No shot you fit this across the screen as a bar.
Just cracked open Gmail to check this. In the hamburger side menu, there's 18 items not even counting labels. No shot you fit this across the screen as a bar.
I was specifically looking at when an email is open. There's 9 menu options. Move To and Change Labels do the same thing, and it has a UI element on screen already. There's also Mark Important which is apparently different from star. Consolidate Move To/Change Labels and move help to the bottom, and everything should fit on top.
Then there's another menu below that with 8 items, 4 of which also already have UI elements. Give the other 4 icons. There's plenty of space on the show pictures line.
You need a menu for label filtering since the user can create many, but let's look at settings. There's a mostly blank screen with a ... menu with 2 options (why is it sometimes hamburger and sometimes ...?): manage accounts and help. Just put them on the screen. Now look at general settings. Enough stuff that I have to scroll, but for some reason 4 of them are in a ... menu. Two are the same as the last screen, with clear search and clear picture approvals added. Now go back to settings. Suddenly settings has all 4 options in the ... menu! The hidden options on the same screen are different depending on where you were before, when they could all just fit on the screen.
In general, scrolling is much faster than clicking on an icon. Lots of web UIs (e.g. navigation menus) could benefit from just putting the links at the bottom.
Then there's another menu below that with 8 items, 4 of which also already have UI elements. Give the other 4 icons. There's plenty of space on the show pictures line.
You need a menu for label filtering since the user can create many, but let's look at settings. There's a mostly blank screen with a ... menu with 2 options (why is it sometimes hamburger and sometimes ...?): manage accounts and help. Just put them on the screen. Now look at general settings. Enough stuff that I have to scroll, but for some reason 4 of them are in a ... menu. Two are the same as the last screen, with clear search and clear picture approvals added. Now go back to settings. Suddenly settings has all 4 options in the ... menu! The hidden options on the same screen are different depending on where you were before, when they could all just fit on the screen.
In general, scrolling is much faster than clicking on an icon. Lots of web UIs (e.g. navigation menus) could benefit from just putting the links at the bottom.
>1280x720
screen resolution vs browser resolution
the most common mobile browser resolution is 800x360
also, 5 years is not that old
screen resolution vs browser resolution
the most common mobile browser resolution is 800x360
also, 5 years is not that old
Pixel density isn't the problem, physical size is. Phone screens are small and many people have poor vision. Some even scale up the contents of their browser 25% or 50% or even 100%.
The more text you have, the more difficult it is to ensure a usable UI on small screens, let alone a good one. Don't be upset about the use of symbols instead of text, but about the use of bad symbols. Nobody needs the "play" button on a video widget to say "play" - they know what the right-facing triangle means. (Ironic because I don't know if it makes geometric sense to even say the triangle has a facing, but as a symbol it's well understood.)
The more text you have, the more difficult it is to ensure a usable UI on small screens, let alone a good one. Don't be upset about the use of symbols instead of text, but about the use of bad symbols. Nobody needs the "play" button on a video widget to say "play" - they know what the right-facing triangle means. (Ironic because I don't know if it makes geometric sense to even say the triangle has a facing, but as a symbol it's well understood.)
I suggest “right-pointing triangle.” Indicating direction with the vertex on the longer axis is a common idiom.
An unlabeled bespoke icon is useless for everyone though, which is strictly worse than text being unhelpfully small for people with uncorrectably poor eyesight.
Put the text below the icon in whatever size you can. It's a strict improvement in usability.
Put the text below the icon in whatever size you can. It's a strict improvement in usability.
I like having greater content area by default, and the text next to an icon in the Gmail Android app is nice too. (The spam button, with its explanation mark, could easily be mistaken for an important button otherwise.)
It's one of the reasons I prefer how Vim and VS Code look over Intellij and Visual Studio standard. Let me better see what I'm focusing on without distractions (the content) instead of shoving a gazillion buttons on your UI in the default view.
Edit: I was too harsh about Intellij I think. The old UI I was thinking of doesn't look bad in my opinion, but I still think I would have enjoyed my experience with Visual Studio more if it had a stronger focus on content (the code) visually.
It's one of the reasons I prefer how Vim and VS Code look over Intellij and Visual Studio standard. Let me better see what I'm focusing on without distractions (the content) instead of shoving a gazillion buttons on your UI in the default view.
Edit: I was too harsh about Intellij I think. The old UI I was thinking of doesn't look bad in my opinion, but I still think I would have enjoyed my experience with Visual Studio more if it had a stronger focus on content (the code) visually.
I agree hieroglyphs make discovery difficult. But I believe designers like them because they allow for consistent design across different languages. E.g. accommodating for German localisation can be difficult.
Yep. Real localisation is too expensive, English-labelled buttons will get you shouted at for being noninclusive (even though, speaking as an immigrant, a labelled button that I can translate with a browser plugin is much nicer than an inscrutable icon), so everyone is in this pit of awfulness.
I built the nav bar at the top of my website[0] to be scrollable if the content doesn’t fit horizontally. I’m slightly concerned about users not realizing there are more options to scroll over, but I prefer it to a hamburger menu that has to open and cover the content since you can see every option and read the corresponding word. No need for any of that when visiting on a desktop however.
[0] https://www.winstoncooke.com/
[0] https://www.winstoncooke.com/
It looks to me like any device with at least 300 horizontal CSS pixels can see your whole nav bar, which should be nearly everyone.
On the other hand, hamburger menus typically have a lot more entries than this, enough that a horizontal menu wouldn't look good even on desktop.
On the other hand, hamburger menus typically have a lot more entries than this, enough that a horizontal menu wouldn't look good even on desktop.
Yeah I only run into the issue when using an iPhone mini with an increased font size. But it’s ready to go if I add more routes. If the list grew to be too large, I would switch to a two-column layout on my homepage for the primary points of interest.
I’m a big fan of collapsible table of contents. That design paradigm allows for the higher level to use a word to indicate what it contains and then can open up to a list. But it does really depend on the type of information conveyed. I can currently get away with always avoiding hamburger menus but that might be tougher for something like a banking app to avoid.
I’m a big fan of collapsible table of contents. That design paradigm allows for the higher level to use a word to indicate what it contains and then can open up to a list. But it does really depend on the type of information conveyed. I can currently get away with always avoiding hamburger menus but that might be tougher for something like a banking app to avoid.
I think the biggest opponent to what you're advocating are new users, they are so easily intimidated by too many things on the screen. These are the people that dominate focus groups and so designers seem to have wrapped themselves around the axle over this one (terrible) rule.
> Hamburgers and Hieroglyphs!
Hieroglyphs sums it up so nicely. Lol. I'll also add hidden, context sensitive options to that list. I like having options that are disabled (aka greyed out) if they're unusable because at least I can see there's a possibility to do something if I get conditions right. Instead, modern designs will hide those options and, if you don't know the magic conditions needed to expose them, you'll never see them.
An example of this is Ubiquiti with their Unifi stuff. If you go to manage switch ports, the page they give for that doesn't have an option to "Select All" ports. You need to select at least one port first, and then the "Select All" option magically appears. So not only is it hidden, it gets the context wrong. Think of having it as a disabled checkbox. Everyone would immediately realize the context is wrong because having the "Select All" checkbox disabled when no ports are selected would be obviously dumb.
Hieroglyphs sums it up so nicely. Lol. I'll also add hidden, context sensitive options to that list. I like having options that are disabled (aka greyed out) if they're unusable because at least I can see there's a possibility to do something if I get conditions right. Instead, modern designs will hide those options and, if you don't know the magic conditions needed to expose them, you'll never see them.
An example of this is Ubiquiti with their Unifi stuff. If you go to manage switch ports, the page they give for that doesn't have an option to "Select All" ports. You need to select at least one port first, and then the "Select All" option magically appears. So not only is it hidden, it gets the context wrong. Think of having it as a disabled checkbox. Everyone would immediately realize the context is wrong because having the "Select All" checkbox disabled when no ports are selected would be obviously dumb.
I've been seeing this more in content, and also apps that are "browsers" really - some view control that have a mobile & PC/MacOS equivalent - like they are intentionally formatting everything for portrait type display on mobile
My devices are a literal ton of iOS ones, and then 4k and a 2560 × 1440 display which I use most frequently lately.
Tons of whitespace, oversized text everywhere and incorrect use of Z-index are some of the hallmarks of this mobile-first design.
My devices are a literal ton of iOS ones, and then 4k and a 2560 × 1440 display which I use most frequently lately.
Tons of whitespace, oversized text everywhere and incorrect use of Z-index are some of the hallmarks of this mobile-first design.
Not directly related (or is it?): I just hate sites where all I see is some fancy wallpaper image and a slogan (if at all).
Then I have to scroll down on my 27" monitor to be able to actually read anything on that site. That is stupid - at least in my opinion.
Then I have to scroll down on my 27" monitor to be able to actually read anything on that site. That is stupid - at least in my opinion.
Proposal to introduce the term "villain image" for this sort of thing.
What you really want is two apps, completely different UX's and its not worth the effort more times than not. No one is going to Herman Miller's website for example and not buying a chair because they don't like the desktop web app experience.
They might pass though if they can't get the site to work well on their phone.
They might pass though if they can't get the site to work well on their phone.
Huh? I've definitely bounced off shops because their web app experience sucked.
Same for restaurants who over-design their website and make it difficult to find the only three things I care about: location, hours, menu.
Don't forget contact too. It was difficult to find contact information on some sites. I remember 10 years ago contact information are usually at the bottom of the main page or in the nav menu. Now, it took some soul searching to find it where they buried it in the submenu. Sometime I usually use Google Maps to get the address or phone number since some site don't make it easier to find it
The trend that I have found to be truly aggravating is restaurants recognizing that sometimes I just want to look at the menu. I don't want to place an order. Don't make me tell you when I want to pick up my order or where I want it delivered. I just want to browse and make a decision later.
[deleted]
I have just cancelled about $500 in monthly subscriptions on Patreon, because I refuse to reward utter management failures.
I refuse to go to restaurants that have QR-code menus that download a PDF with unusably small entries.
Unless you HAVE to use something, you can still vote with your wallet. Herman Miller is not the only furniture company in existence.
I refuse to go to restaurants that have QR-code menus that download a PDF with unusably small entries.
Unless you HAVE to use something, you can still vote with your wallet. Herman Miller is not the only furniture company in existence.
> I refuse to go to restaurants that have QR-code menus that download a PDF with unusably small entries.
I either go on the restaurant's website directly to find the menu or ask for a physical menu. I've never been tripped up by that. I understand I'm still rewarding the owner for their bad choice, but I'm not going to force my friends and family to get up and leave a restaurant we all wanted to try out because of it.
I either go on the restaurant's website directly to find the menu or ask for a physical menu. I've never been tripped up by that. I understand I'm still rewarding the owner for their bad choice, but I'm not going to force my friends and family to get up and leave a restaurant we all wanted to try out because of it.
> I refuse to go to restaurants that have QR-code menus that download a PDF with unusably small entries.
It gets worse. I've been to a restaurant in Silicon Valley where not only were the menus reached through a QR code, the linked page was not the menu. It was the onboarding funnel to get customers to sign up for a food-delivery service. You had to sign up to get menu access. Then you could order online. Dine-in was just ordering food delivered with a really short delivery trip.
It gets worse. I've been to a restaurant in Silicon Valley where not only were the menus reached through a QR code, the linked page was not the menu. It was the onboarding funnel to get customers to sign up for a food-delivery service. You had to sign up to get menu access. Then you could order online. Dine-in was just ordering food delivered with a really short delivery trip.
That's awfully amazing in a very Silicon Valley way.
Here in Seattle we have a few restaurants that use a similar model, you scan a QR code and order food online, only it's "delivered" to your table. But they don't need any account information from you, so it's pretty convenient.
Here in Seattle we have a few restaurants that use a similar model, you scan a QR code and order food online, only it's "delivered" to your table. But they don't need any account information from you, so it's pretty convenient.
The only correct response to that is walking out with your middle finger in the air.
It's a small Asian restaurant in a strip mall. They'd signed up with some Restaurant As A Service provider which handled the ordering, both remote and local. This put them in the position of an Uber driver - they were just gig workers for the app.
> restaurants that have QR-code menus that download a PDF
Oh yes, about half of the time when a restaurant requires me to scan their QR Code to read their online menu, it's a 20 MB PDF - not a responsive web page. And the PDF usually has multiple columns of text, which means I need to zoom and horizontally scroll (generally a big no-no in web design). I'm a technologist at heart and I find this implementation so needlessly bad, and an extremely poor use of technology. I would prefer a no-bullshit paper menu instead.
Oh yes, about half of the time when a restaurant requires me to scan their QR Code to read their online menu, it's a 20 MB PDF - not a responsive web page. And the PDF usually has multiple columns of text, which means I need to zoom and horizontally scroll (generally a big no-no in web design). I'm a technologist at heart and I find this implementation so needlessly bad, and an extremely poor use of technology. I would prefer a no-bullshit paper menu instead.
You and I live in completely different worlds. I will absolutely not complete a purchase if your website is unusable.
In fact, this happened last week--I was trying to purchase a plane ticket and the animations were so excessive and poorly done that it obscurbed a form field that made it impossible to book the ticket. I bounced and booked a ticket from a competing airline.
In fact, this happened last week--I was trying to purchase a plane ticket and the animations were so excessive and poorly done that it obscurbed a form field that made it impossible to book the ticket. I bounced and booked a ticket from a competing airline.
The prissy prima donna web developers in this thread would have you believe that all users are just like them and obviously bounce from any site that isn't perfect (as defined by them of course). In reality most sites are shit and people just suffer through them anyway because something they want is on the other end.
I can only think "first world problems".
I like my first worldism. Nothing satisfies me more than a nice coffee and a smug "I cant stand Jira" in the morning. My life is hard.
Ummm yes? The overwhelming majority of articles on this site are addressing 1st world problems. Are you posting this from your MSF rotation in Gaza?
The Negative Impact of not being mobile first: it took me 5 attempts to dismiss the annoying cookies popup.
Yeah, as someone who can't use touch screens, this is a serious pain point in a lot of my web browsing. Mobile first design is an accessibility problem.
i wish that "Compact" and "Comfortable" options for spacing were as common as dark/light mode
Dark mode requires visual content rich sites to have two sets of assets. Example would be a marketing chart with a white background needs to have a corresponding asset with a black background with different color text and bars.
That can be solved with transparent background images, and brand color palettes that balance contrast in the two modes.
The visual design problem mirrors a problem with the organization producing the website. Before mobile, a website was the entire online presence of a company; every subdivision within the company had a presence above the fold. The culture and conceptual structure of web development developed around this concept. As mobile mandates pushed things below the fold or off the site entirely, web teams found themselves unprepared and have adapted awkwardly, as this article shows. Mobile app teams never had this cultural baggage, which is one of the many reasons native apps are perceived as superior.
The irritating thing is that it is neither mobile first nor desktop first. Most websites I come across are designed and built for desktop but using a mobile aesthetic.
The problem sadly isn't even mobile-first vs. desktop, but rather designers who still haven't figured out that the web is dynamic content that should be allowed to flow according to the user's display device size and shape. It's not and never has been a static medium like paper. It's not limited to a specific size and shape like paper, and should not be treated as if it were. Web "designers" should not be trying to force the content into any specific size or pixel resolution, as there's just too many different resolutions of screens and width vs. height layouts of those screens to ever be able to cover them all appropriately without adapting to the idea that the content must be able to flow accordingly. It also severely harms accessibility for folks with vision issues who might scale up their fonts to compensate if doing so causes the content to break in horrible ways that make it unreadable.
The designers probably know that, but it costs money to design for 2 platforms. So they pick the 2 biggest platforms for non-hackers... Android and iOS...
You're not designing for two (or more) platforms at all. You're designing for one platform. The Web. It's built on some pretty well defined standards that a ton of folks seem hellbent on breaking to force the web into a shape that it simply isn't.
They didn't mean platform in this way. But in the sense that small touchscreens are fundamentally different than big monitors + mouse & keyboard. That's why anything that is not the simplest website should use two different interfaces. (Also, apps don't belong in browsers.)
> So they pick the 2 biggest platforms for non-hackers... Android and iOS...
I can't imagine you are talking about the same thing here. (Or if you are, then you are making OP's point.)
I can't imagine you are talking about the same thing here. (Or if you are, then you are making OP's point.)
It's easy to say stuff like this, but go try and implement it. It's really hard.
Some designers can use Figma's equivalent of grid and flexbox and some can't. What's hard is implementing all the shades of gray between two pixel-perfect designs because the designer didn't do this basic work.
Yeah, it's not really "easy to say stuff like this" because everyone who thinks they know better than actual real honest-to-goodness web designers will instantly want to argue with you to the bitter end why their fantasy web design has to be 100% "pixel perfect" layout exactly as they envision it on every single device or browser ever invented. It's a huge part of why I'm no longer a web designer. More of my time was wasted fixing literal one pixel differences in layout between browsers (and browser versions) than almost any other part of the process.
I haven't encountered a "pixel perfect" designer for at least 15 years now, if not more. Virtually every single UX designer I've worked with provides flexible designs that scale with screen size.
Good. I've finally gotten over my nightmares where I'm chopping photoshop designs and literally using <img src=""> to add a rounded edge on a <td>
This is the most awesome approach for rounded corners: https://ridiculousfish.com/blog/posts/roundy.html
Oh wow, it's even worse than I imagined
Funny that it is slightly broken on Safari Mobile[1]
Zoom in on the [Touché!] button and there are artifacts between the rows that make up the corners.
Zoom in on the [Touché!] button and there are artifacts between the rows that make up the corners.
[1] iPhone OS 16_7 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/16.6 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1In my side of the agency world there are a lot of designers who design UX that aren't UX designers. A lot of them want started in print and expect pixel perfect designs/don't understand the need for breakpoints. We had a client who got on our case about a design being a half a pixel off. That sounds like a joke but it genuinely happened.
I have worked with one of those freaks last year. She argued that every block had to be exactly like it was on Figma, and she once sent me a screenshot with a little ruler drawn on it, to show me a 3px gap. It was such a waste of time and energy...
How _do_ you get a 3px gap though?
They said the people who claim to know more than actual designers will want it pixel perfect. So i.e. The designer knows pixel perfect is a fallacy, the client doesn't care and wants a pixel perfect match of their figma document on their personal laptop screen.
Solution: make that only for that specific viewport, ignore it for the rest. Hard unreasonable clients are not so common as people depict them to be, at least in my experience. I do have a spidey sense after years of client work in sorting them out right away, maybe, but even stupid clients are reasonable if you’re able to make business points about their requests
There is pixel-perfection and 'pixel-perfection'. One is a pointless fight against the nature of the medium while the other is love for the craft, sophistication, and actually giving a fuck that something isn't needlessly 2 pixels off of where it should have been. A certain attitude that will show its mark throughout the UI.
I'm not UX person and I don't know whether "pixel perfect" and absolute positioning requirement come from clients or designers on average. I'd guess it varies by organization, industry and whatever.
But it's worth being clear that mixing such thing with flowing text and graphic is where things get hard. Html 1 had flowing text in the 90s and you can still do that.
Moreover, all this is related to overall user hostile designs. Organizations broadly don't want their pages to be neutral streams of information but want to control a user experience that nudges people this way and that and fixed are important to that.
But it's worth being clear that mixing such thing with flowing text and graphic is where things get hard. Html 1 had flowing text in the 90s and you can still do that.
Moreover, all this is related to overall user hostile designs. Organizations broadly don't want their pages to be neutral streams of information but want to control a user experience that nudges people this way and that and fixed are important to that.
If we had an API for web data then accessibility would've been a solved problem. The user's client would decide the best presentation of information.
That’s too deep on the generic/specific trade off to be legitimately useful
But ... we did, and do. It's called HTML. It allows you to send back structured data in a client-agnostic way. It's just that it got bastardized to the point that people will send the data in a way that only certain clients can intelligibly render it, and then, only in a way usable to people without certain disabilities.
It's not just a technical problem, but the social problem of how you get people to keep using that API, and not extending it, and not breaking it in favor of some different purpose (like ads)
Whatever API for web data you propose, I can tell you exactly what will happen to it:
1) Initial clients are geek-designed and geek-friendly, and render the data intelligently.
2) This API gets popular for not having all the cruft.
3) Some genius discovers they could add some cutesy visuals and effects if only the standard were extended, and targets the clients that handle these extensions.
4) Eventually, only those clients are cared about, and you can only make sense of the data with those clients and if you don't have disabilities.
If you want to make progress, figure out how to eliminate that dynamic.
Earlier threads on this point:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30727026
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20224961
It's not just a technical problem, but the social problem of how you get people to keep using that API, and not extending it, and not breaking it in favor of some different purpose (like ads)
Whatever API for web data you propose, I can tell you exactly what will happen to it:
1) Initial clients are geek-designed and geek-friendly, and render the data intelligently.
2) This API gets popular for not having all the cruft.
3) Some genius discovers they could add some cutesy visuals and effects if only the standard were extended, and targets the clients that handle these extensions.
4) Eventually, only those clients are cared about, and you can only make sense of the data with those clients and if you don't have disabilities.
If you want to make progress, figure out how to eliminate that dynamic.
Earlier threads on this point:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30727026
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20224961
"It needs to look exactly like this PSD file I made!"
You get the same with some native UI designers. They kick and scream until you've got some custom widget that precisely apes the Photoshop layer effects. Then kick and scream again when they make changes that take non-zero time to rebuild with that custom widget.
You get the same with some native UI designers. They kick and scream until you've got some custom widget that precisely apes the Photoshop layer effects. Then kick and scream again when they make changes that take non-zero time to rebuild with that custom widget.
Honestly, this is not a technical issue but rather a communication and “positive non-narcissistic persuasion” one. I think I’m a meh to ok designer and an ok frontend webdev, but my strongest selling point is communication, with clients praising that aspect of my work more often than I would have ever expected. Designers might care about pixel perfection, but their bosses rarely do. If you have engaging, respectful, data-driven, and business-oriented points to make and you communicate them clearly and effectively, you’ll be surprised how many times you can change someone’s mind. Even designers’ minds, because they don’t live in a vacuum and they know that shipping is relevant to their own interests.
Tl;dr invest in effective communication skills as much as you would invest in more technical knowledge.
It's not that hard. Especially for the modern-ish web (aka of the past 6-7 years). And especially not for the 99.9999999% of the web sites out there.
> It's easy to say stuff like this, but go try and implement it. It's really hard.
Here you go:
main { display: flex; flex-direction: row; flex-wrap: wrap; }
..and set reasonable width/margin constraints on your primary content blocks.
Linear, scrollable flow on small/vertical displays, and a denser "grid" on large/horizontal displays.
Here you go:
main { display: flex; flex-direction: row; flex-wrap: wrap; }
..and set reasonable width/margin constraints on your primary content blocks.
Linear, scrollable flow on small/vertical displays, and a denser "grid" on large/horizontal displays.
http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/
It's literally 120 characters to make a website that flows on any (reasonable) screensize and adapts perfectly.
Modern webdev is just throwing frameworks at self-caused problems.
(I'm exagerrating of course. But most websites are just about showing text, maybe with some images every now and then (news sites, reddit, hackernews, google, come to mind). For those websites this is certainly true).
It's literally 120 characters to make a website that flows on any (reasonable) screensize and adapts perfectly.
Modern webdev is just throwing frameworks at self-caused problems.
(I'm exagerrating of course. But most websites are just about showing text, maybe with some images every now and then (news sites, reddit, hackernews, google, come to mind). For those websites this is certainly true).
Yeah rendering just text isn’t hard. Making a UI for a web app is
> flows on any (reasonable) screensize and adapts perfectly.
No it doesn't. It's this pointlessly narrow column in the middle of my screen surrounded by arces of whitespace. If I wanted narrow text I'd make my browser narrow. Looks like the result of some designer fucking around.
No it doesn't. It's this pointlessly narrow column in the middle of my screen surrounded by arces of whitespace. If I wanted narrow text I'd make my browser narrow. Looks like the result of some designer fucking around.
But that is the job. The job of developing on the web is developing for a platform where you do not know the size or format of the display or what the inputs are in advance.
The job of a UX designer on the web is to consider this kind of stuff and to build a design that's very reactive to evolving displays within the demographics and market segments that the client wants to support. If that's not happening, if the CSS people are just getting handed static designs and being told to figure it out -- the problem is not CSS or the developers, it's that the designers building those designs are not good at their jobs. And there are ways to make this easier: notably UX designers involving the CSS department in the design phase, and/or making a point to always lay out the contents of the page without styling in a hierarchical way before making decisions about how to present that content.
But a lot of programming is hard. It's hard for me to write maintainable Javascript that doesn't fall apart if a project goes over 100,000 lines of code. It's hard to document methods. It's hard for me to write code that does complicated things that can work on low-end machines. These are skills that programmers get better at over time with practice. Responsive design is the same; it's just another skill to learn.
Imagine trying to shoot a movie and having the cinematographer tell you that it's hard to frame everyone in the shot since they don't know exactly where the viewer will be looking, or the sound mixer telling you it's hard to balance dialog and sound effects so everyone is audible without it being noticeable that they're muting background audio. Or a recorder telling you that it's hard to master a pop song given that everyone has different speakers and sound profiles on their headphones. Imagine you're building a car and the designer tells you that it's hard to make sure the controls can be reached by people who are different heights and weights.
On one hand, yes it is; all of that stuff is very hard. On the other hand, yes, that is also the reason web UX designers and developers get paid money; because the job is hard and requires training and expertise, and designing a website interface requires more thought and intentionality and planning than is required to make a PDF.
The job of a UX designer on the web is to consider this kind of stuff and to build a design that's very reactive to evolving displays within the demographics and market segments that the client wants to support. If that's not happening, if the CSS people are just getting handed static designs and being told to figure it out -- the problem is not CSS or the developers, it's that the designers building those designs are not good at their jobs. And there are ways to make this easier: notably UX designers involving the CSS department in the design phase, and/or making a point to always lay out the contents of the page without styling in a hierarchical way before making decisions about how to present that content.
But a lot of programming is hard. It's hard for me to write maintainable Javascript that doesn't fall apart if a project goes over 100,000 lines of code. It's hard to document methods. It's hard for me to write code that does complicated things that can work on low-end machines. These are skills that programmers get better at over time with practice. Responsive design is the same; it's just another skill to learn.
Imagine trying to shoot a movie and having the cinematographer tell you that it's hard to frame everyone in the shot since they don't know exactly where the viewer will be looking, or the sound mixer telling you it's hard to balance dialog and sound effects so everyone is audible without it being noticeable that they're muting background audio. Or a recorder telling you that it's hard to master a pop song given that everyone has different speakers and sound profiles on their headphones. Imagine you're building a car and the designer tells you that it's hard to make sure the controls can be reached by people who are different heights and weights.
On one hand, yes it is; all of that stuff is very hard. On the other hand, yes, that is also the reason web UX designers and developers get paid money; because the job is hard and requires training and expertise, and designing a website interface requires more thought and intentionality and planning than is required to make a PDF.
>It's not and never has been a static medium like paper. It's not limited to a specific size and shape like paper, and should not be treated as if it were.
I often get "print first" page layouts, created from dynamic data that can have varying amounts of content. These pages also have to work in mobile and desktop browsers and look good on all of them. I don't find it to be that difficult. Sure it takes a little longer, but it's what the job requires. Media queries make it all possible, as well as a little bit of javascript.
I often get "print first" page layouts, created from dynamic data that can have varying amounts of content. These pages also have to work in mobile and desktop browsers and look good on all of them. I don't find it to be that difficult. Sure it takes a little longer, but it's what the job requires. Media queries make it all possible, as well as a little bit of javascript.
Designing good UI for such a varied platform as "the web frontend" is incredibly challenging. They might be at 300px wide, they might be at 1920px wide, they might have a mouse, or they might be using all touch. Or both. Or neither.
Absolutely not. All books printed have text that is roughly the same line width for a reason. Reading width should always be constrained.
I work with agencies coming from print and oh boy, don’t get me started.
At the same time it’s a freaking mess even for someone who’s been doing this for a long time.
My go to strategy is now to address concerns as much as possible by being involved in the design phase, as I have a design background, then implement and ship and then always have a “tell me everything that’s broken in obscure viewports only 1% of people use” and fix those live with CSS patches and viewport specific media queries during review phase or even live.
Vanguard has been guilty of this as well. Its recent site redesign has been all over the place, and sometimes leaning heavily toward folks using its phone app (not that its phone app is very user friendly either; for example, checking what orders one has placed by account is impossible). It used to be that the website has a table view that shows almost everything I need to know about my holdings. Now, it takes a few clicks to find that info and even then, the layout is so sparse (mobile optimized) and hard to read.
Maybe I'm getting really old and just like to complain about this because I'm not very much used to this phone-oriented UIs.
Maybe I'm getting really old and just like to complain about this because I'm not very much used to this phone-oriented UIs.
I think they also eliminated some of the color hierarchy in favor of just making everything big black text swimming in a sea of white. So it's a little harder to see which pieces of text belong together.
I hate it lol
I hate it lol
Vanguard's website has always been a mess, to be honest. It's really hard to figure out how to do some basic stuff like transfer money.
I figure their website is so bare bones because it reflects their low cost ETFs. They'd rather have a crappy website and cheap ETF's than a fancy website with slightly higher cost ETFs.
I figure their website is so bare bones because it reflects their low cost ETFs. They'd rather have a crappy website and cheap ETF's than a fancy website with slightly higher cost ETFs.
I’m less concerned with brochure and ecommerce sites. But mobile first design for productivity sites and tool interfaces drive me crazy. Who normally accesses these tools from their phones?
I recently had the misfortune of having to use a background check app that was mobile only!
It was a real pain to enter past employer and residence names and addresses on a mobile keyboard, but even worse when it came to dates, because the date picker would only scroll a month at a time, starting from the current month and year. To enter my birthdate, I had to tap ~550 times.
(I was kinda tempted to file an EEOC claim, since the broken date entry has a disproportionate impact on older workers, a protected class. But that's not a great way to introduce yourself to a new employer's HR department.)
It was a real pain to enter past employer and residence names and addresses on a mobile keyboard, but even worse when it came to dates, because the date picker would only scroll a month at a time, starting from the current month and year. To enter my birthdate, I had to tap ~550 times.
(I was kinda tempted to file an EEOC claim, since the broken date entry has a disproportionate impact on older workers, a protected class. But that's not a great way to introduce yourself to a new employer's HR department.)
People who need to zoom in a lot in order to use it. In practice this gives you a small screen view. It's a WCAG requirement
Rightfully so, what’s in it for them to spend more resources on such a niche group?
Desktops/Laptops are for gamers, workers, and programmers. This isn't 2006, people don't read articles on their desktops in leisure. If they are it's because they were also doing one of the three use cases I mentioned.
Desktops/Laptops are for gamers, workers, and programmers. This isn't 2006, people don't read articles on their desktops in leisure. If they are it's because they were also doing one of the three use cases I mentioned.
> Desktops/Laptops are for gamers, workers, and programmers
Nah. Like, I'm all of those; but I very rarely play games these days, and I've retired from programming. But I strongly prefer to use a laptop to browse; I never use a mobile browser. My eyesight is too poor, and my fingers are too fat.
Nah. Like, I'm all of those; but I very rarely play games these days, and I've retired from programming. But I strongly prefer to use a laptop to browse; I never use a mobile browser. My eyesight is too poor, and my fingers are too fat.
>My eyesight is too poor, and my fingers are too fat.
What about tablets?
What about tablets?
Think a lot of the issue is the difficulty grasping what size the actual screen is. I get webpages on my 1080p monitor where everything is just far too big but I guess as far as the code is concerned it has limited knowledge of whether the physical size of the screen is 24" or 5"
I think mobile devices use scaling. The number of pixels reported are are not the screen’s resolution.
Display: inline-block is the answer :p
Shit like this makes me want to learn more about using accessibility features of my browsers. I'm far from going blind, but I don't want to scroll through the angry fruit salad of alegria art, huge stock images that take a huge amount of screen real estate and the important bits being tucked away probably somewhere in the bottom.
"Minimalist design" and it still takes multiple megabytes of bandwidth to show a pretty nothing.
I'm using Reader Mode or an equivalent whenever I can. If a site cannot be dealt with using RM, I mostly go elsewhere.
Now get off my lawn, kids.
"Minimalist design" and it still takes multiple megabytes of bandwidth to show a pretty nothing.
I'm using Reader Mode or an equivalent whenever I can. If a site cannot be dealt with using RM, I mostly go elsewhere.
Now get off my lawn, kids.
I think that many user interfaces only make sense on desktop, like development IDEs for example
It’s an indicator that most of their userbase is mobile. Look at B2B SaaS apps and they tend to have the opposite problem
Skill issue.
It's not just web design. Desktop software is being ruined by mobile-only app design.
Desktop software has been ruined by touch UI. Big buttons made for fat fingers means we get "Fisher Price" UIs. Not a bad thing for the casual user, but for power users it feels like we're moving backwards.
This is a really long article to say "Content dispersion is bad".
Yeah, obviously. More so if you use a generic image like Waze. It's not a usability problem, it's a quality problem. Apple does just fine with full width desktop heroes because they include relevant images.
Yeah, obviously. More so if you use a generic image like Waze. It's not a usability problem, it's a quality problem. Apple does just fine with full width desktop heroes because they include relevant images.
Over the years it's become clear to me that frontend is probably the hardest part of the stack. People think they can just shit out some bootstrap react app and it's perfect, but being able to write complex UIs that can work on any browser, any device, with all assistive technologies, and all languages, is extremely hard. You need someone with a deep knowledge of html, css, and the supportive web apis. A good frontend engineer is incredibly rare, even at big tech. What's even more rare is a UX designer that also thinks about these things, who are worth a million bucks.
The irony is that we are now all very enthusiastic about a text based user interface.
UI, in my mind, has always been the hardest part of the stack. It is even more true today. A front-end dev must:
- Deal with a subjective human (not an objective machine)
- Deal with designers and product managers
- Be constrained by the back-end engineer and infrastructure
- Make it work on multiple devices and browsers
- Use the framework someone else chose
- Not break anything
Kudos to all front-end devs out there!
Kudos to all front-end devs out there!
I don't mean to minimize the effort of FE as I agree it is under-appreciated. But if the BE folks don't work closely with PMs and designers then you're already fucked and no amount of FE lipstick will make up for it.
Your comment made me curious: what kinds of insights have you seen BE folks miss due to not working closely with PMs and designers?
Obviously it depends on the product/project, but the backend (data modeling, state management, data locality, etc) is crucial to how the product works and UX. The most common gaps I've seen are ineffective reasoning about the state of the user over time, permutations of different logical states, and consistency across surfaces owned by different teams. A good BE product engineer can get their head around the whole problem space and reason about the UX holistically in a way that can provide a huge amount of value to designers and product managers in interactive sessions. If BE does not get a seat at the table you often end up with non-sensical PRDs, designs missing critical details, or worse visual typos end up being interpreted as requirements.
Of course many FE engineers have the chops to solve for these things, as well as PMs and designers with technical background, deep domain expertise, and other qualifications that can make up for these gaps. I came up professionally in the early web days and building startups where it was normal to wear many hats, so it's more about skillsets than rigid titles and role definitions. I've just seen a very common gap that a lot of ostensibly professional proddev folks, even at top companies, have borderline magical thinking about the deeper layers of the product stack.
Of course many FE engineers have the chops to solve for these things, as well as PMs and designers with technical background, deep domain expertise, and other qualifications that can make up for these gaps. I came up professionally in the early web days and building startups where it was normal to wear many hats, so it's more about skillsets than rigid titles and role definitions. I've just seen a very common gap that a lot of ostensibly professional proddev folks, even at top companies, have borderline magical thinking about the deeper layers of the product stack.
Not only are good frontend engineers rare, but I've also noticed that it seems to be common for the best ones to migrate out of frontend work. They get tired of spending all day fighting with colleagues who have coding skills but not design acumen, and the same traits that make them a good frontend engineer also make it very easy to transition to a role that comes with a less psychologically costly work environment.
That, and you have to spend so much time justifying your value. Most people can appreciate when things look nice. However the bar is usually pretty low, set to above “barely working” in most cases. That, coupled with the things you mentioned above, makes the field difficult.
Personally, I love front end work. I love the crazy challenges and weird constraints. I love seeing a UI — something that a human interacts with — at the end of the process. Server side work can be interesting for a little while, but if I don’t see the results in the UI, it feels hollow.
Strangely, even though I’ve been doing this for twenty five years and I’ve never been better at it, in today’s bullshit interviewing environment, I can’t get a job because I can’t solve algorithms or do system designs in forty five minutes. And so I’m sitting on the sidelines right now. It’s the most bizarre experience of my career.
Strangely, even though I’ve been doing this for twenty five years and I’ve never been better at it, in today’s bullshit interviewing environment, I can’t get a job because I can’t solve algorithms or do system designs in forty five minutes. And so I’m sitting on the sidelines right now. It’s the most bizarre experience of my career.
Yeah I totally get that.
I’ve created projects that are used by the entire business and customer facing part of the company, which are so rock solid and user-friendly that the users and even developers who’ve come after me completely takes the functionality for granted.
One feature in particular, I came up with a lot of the UI myself, even while working with a designer. I made the backend work. I spent a lot of effort making it just feel good. It went out, I got congratulations, it was great. Now, 3 years later, it still works with minimal maintenance. Entire processes of the business have been built on top of that functionality. Everyone completely takes for granted that this highly complex system has worked with nearly zero issues for years, and allowed a ton of new features using it as a base.
And honestly building something complex that works so well that everyone takes it for granted is an amazing feeling.
I’m just extremely lucky to have management that recognizes it and has seen the value in that contribution. But I don’t know how I’d ever sell this to another company if I were to look for another job in the future.
I’ve created projects that are used by the entire business and customer facing part of the company, which are so rock solid and user-friendly that the users and even developers who’ve come after me completely takes the functionality for granted.
One feature in particular, I came up with a lot of the UI myself, even while working with a designer. I made the backend work. I spent a lot of effort making it just feel good. It went out, I got congratulations, it was great. Now, 3 years later, it still works with minimal maintenance. Entire processes of the business have been built on top of that functionality. Everyone completely takes for granted that this highly complex system has worked with nearly zero issues for years, and allowed a ton of new features using it as a base.
And honestly building something complex that works so well that everyone takes it for granted is an amazing feeling.
I’m just extremely lucky to have management that recognizes it and has seen the value in that contribution. But I don’t know how I’d ever sell this to another company if I were to look for another job in the future.
Yeah I moved out of frontend work for the backend. Backend work is a series of black boxes. You can make a million mistakes and it won't necessarily be an issue. With the frontend your work is exposed for everyone to see and critique. Not only that, but it's very hard to actually compartmentalize changes. A component that looks fine in isolation might be completely out of place in a larger peice. I frequently found myself near panicking that I didn't mess something up before launch because it was nearly impossible to handle all cases that we cared about through tests. Of course we would hire people to run through the site once before launch. But what about after we fix all the bugs? Did we introduce new ones after fixing the old? Are all of our translations stoll appropriate? Where they ever?
While I don't do frontend work, I still push UX and management to minimize the surface area and complexity of the frontend. Keep to simple html elements, flowing top to bottom with minimal css, etc.
While I don't do frontend work, I still push UX and management to minimize the surface area and complexity of the frontend. Keep to simple html elements, flowing top to bottom with minimal css, etc.
Personally I try to find work where:
1. I'm the only FE dev, with a strict separation between BE and FE work (and a BE team that's happy with this arrangement).
2. I'm given the keys to the castles in terms of technology and architecture for the FE.
This lets me maximize time spent understanding our product, our users, and iterating with PM/Design.
1. I'm the only FE dev, with a strict separation between BE and FE work (and a BE team that's happy with this arrangement).
2. I'm given the keys to the castles in terms of technology and architecture for the FE.
This lets me maximize time spent understanding our product, our users, and iterating with PM/Design.
Spot on.
Front end is how I got started programming, both as a hobby and professionally. It has a certain tangible quality to it that makes it both approachable and satisfying, but that often gets misconstrued as "easy". It's not easy!
I spent several years doing mostly-FE work and all the bikeshedding and meddling and "just make it do X why is it so hard?" burned that appreciation right out of me. It's also the first thing to get blamed for every bug and error, because it's what you see and interact with, which is just exhausting.
I took the technical skills I learned and transitioned to mostly backend where there's more "trust" (i.e., I don't understand what you do so I'll just let you do it) and autonomy. A small part of me misses the visually demonstrable part of front end, but the work culture around it I don't miss one iota.
Front end is how I got started programming, both as a hobby and professionally. It has a certain tangible quality to it that makes it both approachable and satisfying, but that often gets misconstrued as "easy". It's not easy!
I spent several years doing mostly-FE work and all the bikeshedding and meddling and "just make it do X why is it so hard?" burned that appreciation right out of me. It's also the first thing to get blamed for every bug and error, because it's what you see and interact with, which is just exhausting.
I took the technical skills I learned and transitioned to mostly backend where there's more "trust" (i.e., I don't understand what you do so I'll just let you do it) and autonomy. A small part of me misses the visually demonstrable part of front end, but the work culture around it I don't miss one iota.
Being blamed for all the bugs and issues is causing a lot of burnout for me over the last year. More often than not the issue is not with my code, but either an issue with the back end or a matter of the QA person not understanding what they're testing. I totally agree, it'sexhausting, and it's refreshing to see someone else say so.
I'm mostly a backend engineer, but I occasionally have to make UIs. It's not only that it's the hardest part of the stack (I agree with that, but it can also be an interesting challenge), it's also that it's the part of the stack where everyone and his dog think they have a say. It's infuriating really.
Thanks for this, my peers thought I was insane to move in the front end about 10 years ago (after having been in the industry for 10 years already).
But it’s so important for SaaS type companies to do this correctly, I felt like I was treading water and stagnant with "backend code" that was mostly just piping the db data to the UI.
But it’s so important for SaaS type companies to do this correctly, I felt like I was treading water and stagnant with "backend code" that was mostly just piping the db data to the UI.
Yeah, agreed. Somehow CSS and a very general concern for UX have become my most valuable skills as a developer. I think the title of the article isn't correct. It should be "The Negative Impact of Responsive Design by People Who Aren't Good At It."
Indeed. It’s really a bummer that “frontend engineer” has more become synonymous with “react engineer”.
Thanks for saying so. I was a front-end developer for many years, and felt both the difficulty and the persistent lack of appreciation for that difficulty. I ended up quitting and just becoming a designer, because if I'm not going to get any respect, at least I shouldn't have to keep running on the treadmill of new technologies. I have also done back-end development, and it is certainly difficult in its own way, but for the money I'd rather work on that than the front end.
Having done all three, I have a mental model with two axes: appreciation and meddling. It might be appropriate to sketch it here.
With design, the result of your work ends up being visual, so you get a lot of appreciation for it. Maybe too much, sometimes. On the other hand, everyone has an opinion about how you could do your job better, and they're happy to stick their fingers into your work (because it's so easy, you know?).
With back-end development, nobody is going to meddle in your work except other engineers: by meddle, I mean step in and tell you how to do it better. That's because they don't know what you do at all. The other side of that opaqueness, though, is that you rarely get credit for good work. Stuff just works the way it should.
Front-end development is in between the two. People will give you credit when things work the way they should, and when they look nice, and so on. But, half the time when an application is "snappy" and performant, they'll credit the designer for it (ha ha). At the same time, they'll also tell you how things "should" work, based on how other applications do it. Meanwhile, you're stuck between what the designer approved, and what the back-end supports, and you're just doing your best to make it all work.
Having done all three, I have a mental model with two axes: appreciation and meddling. It might be appropriate to sketch it here.
With design, the result of your work ends up being visual, so you get a lot of appreciation for it. Maybe too much, sometimes. On the other hand, everyone has an opinion about how you could do your job better, and they're happy to stick their fingers into your work (because it's so easy, you know?).
With back-end development, nobody is going to meddle in your work except other engineers: by meddle, I mean step in and tell you how to do it better. That's because they don't know what you do at all. The other side of that opaqueness, though, is that you rarely get credit for good work. Stuff just works the way it should.
Front-end development is in between the two. People will give you credit when things work the way they should, and when they look nice, and so on. But, half the time when an application is "snappy" and performant, they'll credit the designer for it (ha ha). At the same time, they'll also tell you how things "should" work, based on how other applications do it. Meanwhile, you're stuck between what the designer approved, and what the back-end supports, and you're just doing your best to make it all work.
I like the mental model and I have often witnessed the meddling you mentioned.
My favorite kind of meddling:
The current state of a software product is presented to C-Level. After listening (usually) for a few minutes one of the most senior people in the room starts expressing a strong opinion about how a certain color should be changed.
Now the color scheme discussion starts. The complexity of enabling an interaction of a user with the software through the interface is not discussed at all.
At least changing a color usually doesn't harm the usability too much.
You've outlined it so well! "you're stuck between... and you're just doing your best to make it all work."
Couple that with the fact that the whole front-end world has gone completely bonkers, reinventing the wheel so many times in the last 10 years I'm surprised my head hasn't separated from my body.
It's funny that things have come full-circle these days, going back to server-rendered views. My career literally witnessed the entire move from HTML -> SPA -> HTML again. It only took roughly 16 years.
Couple that with the fact that the whole front-end world has gone completely bonkers, reinventing the wheel so many times in the last 10 years I'm surprised my head hasn't separated from my body.
It's funny that things have come full-circle these days, going back to server-rendered views. My career literally witnessed the entire move from HTML -> SPA -> HTML again. It only took roughly 16 years.
You don't see the value add?
People have even gone all the way back and started writing inline styles again. (Tailwind)
Thanks for sharing. Do you still implement your own designs or "throw it over the wall"? Any tips on making the switch?
> Over the years it's become clear to me that frontend is probably the hardest part of the stack.
I learned how hard frontend is when developing a browser-based game.
The backend code was simple and easy to test with unit tests.
Frontend though is a slog to write, and even greater slog to test.
I wonder how much better frontend would be if JavaScript wasn't the chosen language. It's just such a bad language in so many ways.
I learned how hard frontend is when developing a browser-based game.
The backend code was simple and easy to test with unit tests.
Frontend though is a slog to write, and even greater slog to test.
I wonder how much better frontend would be if JavaScript wasn't the chosen language. It's just such a bad language in so many ways.
I agree wholeheartedly that frontend work is very, very complex (and has only gotten more so in recent years), but I disagree it's the hardest part of the stack simply because you typically don't have to worry about scale.
Imagine a system processing billions of records per day/week/month, dealing with data caching, data warehousing, providing realtime notifications to users and external systems, managing queue workloads, handling inbound requests from various APIs, syncing data between backend systems, running multiple data stores and scaling across multiple regions, redundancy, and handling incidents that arise on the backend. This is typical for complex web software.
A frontend system that provides the interface to that backend system will usually not have issues arise in the middle of the night due to the automated processes happening on the backend, will not have to worry about how many users are using the system nor how much underlying data there is.
No matter how difficult it is to do the initial development of the frontend (or to keep that code updated when browsers change), at the end of the day once the development is done it's static code interfacing with a much more complex underlying system that requires constant attention as underlying data and business requirements evolve.
Imagine a system processing billions of records per day/week/month, dealing with data caching, data warehousing, providing realtime notifications to users and external systems, managing queue workloads, handling inbound requests from various APIs, syncing data between backend systems, running multiple data stores and scaling across multiple regions, redundancy, and handling incidents that arise on the backend. This is typical for complex web software.
A frontend system that provides the interface to that backend system will usually not have issues arise in the middle of the night due to the automated processes happening on the backend, will not have to worry about how many users are using the system nor how much underlying data there is.
No matter how difficult it is to do the initial development of the frontend (or to keep that code updated when browsers change), at the end of the day once the development is done it's static code interfacing with a much more complex underlying system that requires constant attention as underlying data and business requirements evolve.
The frontend isn't done after the initial work. Requirements frequently change and update as management gets new ideas. Additionally, the frontend isn't spared from the concerns of scaling. You'll often be tasked with demands to decrease load from clients to help the backend keep up, which will involve lots of clever caching and tricks like debouncing. Finally, scaling on the backend isn't nearly as hard these days given all of the existing tech you can leverage like k8s and the cloud. Modern tech has only made the frontend harder as requirements have increased.
Let's see a show of hands: Who among us have had to worry about scale?
Last place I worked that struggled with "scale" tried All The Things except one: simplification. It was like being a little kid in a royal court filled with naked people complimenting each other's fashion choices.
Last place I worked that struggled with "scale" tried All The Things except one: simplification. It was like being a little kid in a royal court filled with naked people complimenting each other's fashion choices.
Honestly that’s the reason I stayed in backend work. Frontend seemed to be too much like the English language- more exceptions than rules, only changing nearly constantly.
I’m grateful to those who have the patience and skill for it.
I’m grateful to those who have the patience and skill for it.
Generally speaking, interfacing with users is the hardest part of almost any program. Even when writing simple CLI tools, 80-90% of the code is often UI-related, even though it barely qualifies as an 'interface'. Flags, documentation, sanitization, reasonable error messages, type-checking and sanity-checking the inputs...and then, generally, a handful of lines of actual, useful code.
I think UI's are an inherently hard problem and HTML/CSS/JS are the completely wrong tools for the job. Every time I'm doing front end webdev it feels like I'm trying to hammer square blocks into round holes.
At a previous job I did (not tech related) I had to use some internal web app, and that thing was absolutely full of these mistakes, everything has padding, the text has padding, the box around the text has padding, the table row cotaining that box has even more padding.
This led to an app that could fit like 4 table rows on a standard 1080p display, and every row of that table had very little actual info
On top of that, for some ungodly reason text size was defined by view width, and on some of the old 4:3 displays that were there, it was damn near unusable
This led to an app that could fit like 4 table rows on a standard 1080p display, and every row of that table had very little actual info
On top of that, for some ungodly reason text size was defined by view width, and on some of the old 4:3 displays that were there, it was damn near unusable
This is pure for my information only.
Has flex+grid eased the situation somewhat? With media + container queries?
If not, why not? Are these models too complex or the browsers still are buggy/inconsistent in their implementation of these layout algorithms?
Has flex+grid eased the situation somewhat? With media + container queries?
If not, why not? Are these models too complex or the browsers still are buggy/inconsistent in their implementation of these layout algorithms?
There are nice technical solutions. Media queries + flex + grid (when you need it) give you all the tools you need. There's just a lot of ways to do it wrong.
I use flexbox exclusively. My personal opinion is that if you're using media queries for anything other than "screen" vs "print" you're absolutely doing it wrong, in particular, media queries for screen size are a red flag.
To me, the trick to using flexbox effectively is to use it to create fully reactive layouts the way that Gtk or Qt would design them. I create flexbox interfaces in terms of "VBox" and "HBox" containers, I use flex-grow to handle the concept of "box packing."
Once I started seeing it through this lens, and when CSS finally added calc() and other functions writing good and consistent frontend UIs that mimic precisely how almost all other desktop software behaves became incredibly simple.
The only real complaint I have is that after I have a finished product, going back and making changes is harder than what other techniques might afford, thankfully HTML added <template> and by incorporating that liberally into my designs I've regained some of the original careless flexibility I had before it.
To me, the trick to using flexbox effectively is to use it to create fully reactive layouts the way that Gtk or Qt would design them. I create flexbox interfaces in terms of "VBox" and "HBox" containers, I use flex-grow to handle the concept of "box packing."
Once I started seeing it through this lens, and when CSS finally added calc() and other functions writing good and consistent frontend UIs that mimic precisely how almost all other desktop software behaves became incredibly simple.
The only real complaint I have is that after I have a finished product, going back and making changes is harder than what other techniques might afford, thankfully HTML added <template> and by incorporating that liberally into my designs I've regained some of the original careless flexibility I had before it.
Thank you for your answer. I'm more curious about your approach. Would appreciate if you have some pointers in that direction. Like some sample/gist or blog posts etc.
Hope this helps. I used to do a lot of work in GTK's Glade and Qt's Designer. I was surprised how simple flexbox made it to just recreate those ideas in CSS.
https://jsfiddle.net/c16rwabo/1/
https://jsfiddle.net/c16rwabo/1/
I know we all generally just do what the boss tells us but:
> being able to write complex UIs that can work on any browser, any device, with all assistive technologies, and all languages, is extremely hard
Why do we keep doing this? If you get rid of the animations, popups, and invasive ads, then with what's left you can probably do away with all of this crap.
> being able to write complex UIs that can work on any browser, any device, with all assistive technologies, and all languages, is extremely hard
Why do we keep doing this? If you get rid of the animations, popups, and invasive ads, then with what's left you can probably do away with all of this crap.
Frontend is complex. That's also why some people think the tech stack is "overly complicated". Deploying rich interactive user interfaces with the push of a button to the entire world is a marvel, why would people expect that to be easy anyway?
Yeah, but none of that's the hard part, the deploy to the entire world is the easy part. The hard part is that the entire UI system is designed around the premise of formatting XML based documents with modifier tags, even though that premise is completely wrong for most systems.
> You need someone with a deep knowledge of html, css, and the supportive web apis.
And this is just for working in the browser. Once you your product is big enough you just know there will be requests for a native app on mobile. Oh but also the mobile version of the website needs to keep working. So now you're adding in requirements of learning Swift, Java, and the platform specific UI frameworks/SDKs.
And this is just for working in the browser. Once you your product is big enough you just know there will be requests for a native app on mobile. Oh but also the mobile version of the website needs to keep working. So now you're adding in requirements of learning Swift, Java, and the platform specific UI frameworks/SDKs.
> What's even more rare is a UX designer that also thinks about these things, who are worth a million bucks.
Tell me about it. I've been struggling for years to get our designers to think of their designs as more than pixels on a screen. I'm really tired of having to be the accessibility police, or explain that small viewports and mobile devices aren't synonymous for the nth time.
Tell me about it. I've been struggling for years to get our designers to think of their designs as more than pixels on a screen. I'm really tired of having to be the accessibility police, or explain that small viewports and mobile devices aren't synonymous for the nth time.
User interface developers have always been less numerous and undervalued.
Back in the day, Mitch Kapor (Lotus 1-2-3) was widely panned for claiming design is a skill set separate from programming, and should be valued equally.
Not much has changed since.
> frontend is probably the hardest part of the stack
Again, this has always been true. Especially in terms of fit & finish. It's really no comparison. And it gets harder over time.
The real bummer with UI work is when you nail it, almost no one will notice.
Back in the day, Mitch Kapor (Lotus 1-2-3) was widely panned for claiming design is a skill set separate from programming, and should be valued equally.
Not much has changed since.
> frontend is probably the hardest part of the stack
Again, this has always been true. Especially in terms of fit & finish. It's really no comparison. And it gets harder over time.
The real bummer with UI work is when you nail it, almost no one will notice.
As a webdesigner myself I kind of disagree. Simple content per screen just works better for the example they gave. It’s easier to visually parse. Their condensed version has a lot of multi column layouts which I really dislike.
High content density works for desktop applications, but not for what’s basically a brochure website.
High content density works for desktop applications, but not for what’s basically a brochure website.
What's cool about the article's take, though, is that it's based on an actual usability study and not just something someone said.
Where's the peer review?
Let's not set up a double standard here. It's not like non-evidence-based opinions are subject to peer review.
I'm just applying the same standard here, a non peer reviewed study has the same value as the opinion of a web designer.
A study needs peer review, but some web designer's opinion is just to be accepted as gospel?
When you use appeal to credibility "this is a real study and not just an opinion", yes, you need a peer review. Especially with how poor the quality of much unreviewed research is. Nobody suggested taking the opinion as gospel.
"Appeal to credibility"? Are we just making up fallacies based on a formula now?
Yes, given two alternatives, one should prefer the one that is more credible in light of the available information. That certainly doesn't mean that the more credible of the two is incontrovertible, but it does take more than armchair skepticism to controvert it.
Skepticism is about paying attention to all of the evidence that has been presented. Coming up with cute phrases to justify offhandedly dismissing information that you don't like falls more into the realm of pseudoskepticism.
Yes, given two alternatives, one should prefer the one that is more credible in light of the available information. That certainly doesn't mean that the more credible of the two is incontrovertible, but it does take more than armchair skepticism to controvert it.
Skepticism is about paying attention to all of the evidence that has been presented. Coming up with cute phrases to justify offhandedly dismissing information that you don't like falls more into the realm of pseudoskepticism.
Every string of words isn't just naming a fallacy. Sometimes words just make sentences. The person was appealing to the credibility associated with a "real study", so that's what I said.
I'm gonna assume you mean appeal to authority. As someone who has had a leg inside academia, it is shocking how frequently peer review lets absolutely methodologically horrifying studies through the cracks. Peer review is little more than a rubber stamp that enables others to be less skeptical of the contents.
The true stamp of proof in science was always intended to be replicability, but that is extremely rare to find.
The true stamp of proof in science was always intended to be replicability, but that is extremely rare to find.
Nope, both are to be taken with a grain of salt.
Agreed. It's hard to believe that marketing pages, after decades of evolution and testing, haven't landed on what users actually want, rather than what they say they want.
Scrolling is such a natural behavior for internet natives. Being able to leverage a large screen to visually compare things has its place, but the article uses a horrible example:
> Our condensed product page prototype took the same information from the original dispersed page and arranged it in a 2x2 grid that allowed users to compare multiple services simultaneously, without having to remember the details of each service.
What's to compare? They're disparate services.
I do like the example of the product specifications. But that was more of an objective usability issue: requiring more clicks for more information.
Scrolling is such a natural behavior for internet natives. Being able to leverage a large screen to visually compare things has its place, but the article uses a horrible example:
> Our condensed product page prototype took the same information from the original dispersed page and arranged it in a 2x2 grid that allowed users to compare multiple services simultaneously, without having to remember the details of each service.
What's to compare? They're disparate services.
I do like the example of the product specifications. But that was more of an objective usability issue: requiring more clicks for more information.
> Scrolling is such a natural behavior for internet natives.
My jaw dropped at the participant who apparently saw the hero section of one of the pages, and thought that was the whole site. I get that scroll bars are invisible these days so you can't immediately see the page height, but not even trying to scroll anyway is wild to me.
But tons of users are not "internet natives".
My jaw dropped at the participant who apparently saw the hero section of one of the pages, and thought that was the whole site. I get that scroll bars are invisible these days so you can't immediately see the page height, but not even trying to scroll anyway is wild to me.
But tons of users are not "internet natives".
It’s not at all uncommon.
Scrollbars can show up at weird places and not do anything at all due to UI issues, and they’re not that visible anyway in proportion to the page contents, even if we are to assume Windows 95 style scroll bars. Therefore the only indication of whether a piece of content is scrollable is its layout, and a hero taking up the entire viewport height is next to impossible to understand.
This is the reason many such pages have a “Learn more” page whose only function is to scroll the page down by one viewport height, or less commonly a pulsating arrow at the bottom that tells the user the content is scrollable.
Scrollbars can show up at weird places and not do anything at all due to UI issues, and they’re not that visible anyway in proportion to the page contents, even if we are to assume Windows 95 style scroll bars. Therefore the only indication of whether a piece of content is scrollable is its layout, and a hero taking up the entire viewport height is next to impossible to understand.
This is the reason many such pages have a “Learn more” page whose only function is to scroll the page down by one viewport height, or less commonly a pulsating arrow at the bottom that tells the user the content is scrollable.
I totally understand the point about the scroll bars, I meant to say that I habitually scroll pages, without even thinking. There's no analysis, no attention to the (hard to see) scroll bar, the intuition is always to scroll. Even when it's very clear that I'm intended to be at the bottom (e.g. I can see a conventional footer layout) it's just a reflex.
But yes, I agree with you it's undoubtedly common (enough). I was just pointing out the difference with "internet natives".
But yes, I agree with you it's undoubtedly common (enough). I was just pointing out the difference with "internet natives".
Another web designer here: I agree. Notice how the screenshots are "zoomed out" which makes the multi column look rich and more visually appealing. While I'm all for using the horizontal space available to you, everything we're taught about "call to action" leads to single element design.
Yes. I kind of agree with the headline of the article in reality, but their example isn't good.
The thing that I truly find awkward is no nice touch equivalent to hover.
It's such a useful piece of the UX to have thrown away in the move to mobile first.
Other than that I probably fall in the "it's not that hard" camp. Of all the problems you have to solve, getting it to look reasonable on a few different screen sizes is pretty far down the list in terms of time and complexity.
It's such a useful piece of the UX to have thrown away in the move to mobile first.
Other than that I probably fall in the "it's not that hard" camp. Of all the problems you have to solve, getting it to look reasonable on a few different screen sizes is pretty far down the list in terms of time and complexity.
I think long press handles both that and right-click on touchscreens. Or at least that's what I use to get at image alt text on mobile firefox.
Actual hover detection would be possible, but I imagine that UX would suck unless you were using a stylus.
Actual hover detection would be possible, but I imagine that UX would suck unless you were using a stylus.
Long press is already an engrained mobile OS behavior (begin text selection). And it doesn't solve the problem because the hover state is largely non-visible beneath the user's finger.
hover like effect with touchscreen was possible in Xperia Sola.
> to consume all content.
I've decided, whenever anyone weighs in on information/interaction design, and says "consume...content", what they are saying is, "Hey, we've been stabbing everyone in the face all wrong, here's a better way to stab everyone in the face."
I've decided, whenever anyone weighs in on information/interaction design, and says "consume...content", what they are saying is, "Hey, we've been stabbing everyone in the face all wrong, here's a better way to stab everyone in the face."
Our AB testing indicates 12% higher laceration engagement is possible with additional modal enstabbators.
Add Substack to the list of brain-dead companies that use a mobile-first UI for an app that's primarly used on the desktop. Cause nobody types 3,000-word newsletters on their mobile, that's for damn sure!
Mobile-first is not mobile only design!
This article has completely misunderstand the term, mobile first it's the technical way of organizing the CSS to render the mobile viewport first and then the rest of the 'breakpoints'.
Mobile-first design has the advantage, over the desktop-first design, that it directly render first the mobile design and the cellphone experience is much faster and with less rearragning flickering.
Mobile-first doesn't have the corresponding disadvantages at the desktop browser since they tend to have a land line internet and much faster cpu and memory.
This article has completely misunderstand the term, mobile first it's the technical way of organizing the CSS to render the mobile viewport first and then the rest of the 'breakpoints'.
Mobile-first design has the advantage, over the desktop-first design, that it directly render first the mobile design and the cellphone experience is much faster and with less rearragning flickering.
Mobile-first doesn't have the corresponding disadvantages at the desktop browser since they tend to have a land line internet and much faster cpu and memory.
I think they're assuming or taking the case of mobile first design with desktop as an afterthought.
World Leaders in Research (!)-Based User Experience
---
And they checked a Herman Miller site. How often do you go to HM? When you want to buy a 6000 dollar chair. That's maybe once in a lifetime.
On desktop, nobody cares about mobile first trendy large image sites, because you can scroll, you have a mouse, you have a full keyboard. You can use CTRL-F. You can navigate away from the bullshit, QUICK. Your handicap is ZERO.
The real problem is really about mobile sites viewed on mobile.
You search for something and arrive butt naked on sites. What you get? Full screen cookie consent pages. Then a subscribe to the newsletter full screen modal. Okay, now you get the content, but not really, because half size ads, ads on top, ads on bottom kill your eery-xperience.
The experience is crazy because you have a restricted way to interact with the site. A shitty onscreen keyboard, you have to scroll a lot with your fingers. Save the mobile experience first.
On desktop the problem is with large sites, with lots of traffic, with lots of users. "Finely" tuned by the sancrosanct A/B tests.
Facebook/Instagram desktop experience is borderline crazy. Facebook's comment experience is just plain shit. Koko the tacticle sign-speaking gorilla would've made a better job on that.
On Instagram, if you view it from desktop, then you are viewed as a peasant. How dare you to visit the site from the desktop? Are you retarded? Clicking on a post? Go register now, peasant!
Wait a sec, you tried to register through desktop? Now go hang yourself, rural monkey! No, you can't set yourself to be 18+ to view the boobs, you need a mobile for that. Told ya, go hang yourself desktop peasant.
Oh, the creators of React, the bloated bullshit frontend experience framework created by colour haired individuals that every brainwashed idiot loves like a plush polar bear.
Time to push back and send the naive + trendy developers to the soon to be established Mars base.
---
And they checked a Herman Miller site. How often do you go to HM? When you want to buy a 6000 dollar chair. That's maybe once in a lifetime.
On desktop, nobody cares about mobile first trendy large image sites, because you can scroll, you have a mouse, you have a full keyboard. You can use CTRL-F. You can navigate away from the bullshit, QUICK. Your handicap is ZERO.
The real problem is really about mobile sites viewed on mobile.
You search for something and arrive butt naked on sites. What you get? Full screen cookie consent pages. Then a subscribe to the newsletter full screen modal. Okay, now you get the content, but not really, because half size ads, ads on top, ads on bottom kill your eery-xperience.
The experience is crazy because you have a restricted way to interact with the site. A shitty onscreen keyboard, you have to scroll a lot with your fingers. Save the mobile experience first.
On desktop the problem is with large sites, with lots of traffic, with lots of users. "Finely" tuned by the sancrosanct A/B tests.
Facebook/Instagram desktop experience is borderline crazy. Facebook's comment experience is just plain shit. Koko the tacticle sign-speaking gorilla would've made a better job on that.
On Instagram, if you view it from desktop, then you are viewed as a peasant. How dare you to visit the site from the desktop? Are you retarded? Clicking on a post? Go register now, peasant!
Wait a sec, you tried to register through desktop? Now go hang yourself, rural monkey! No, you can't set yourself to be 18+ to view the boobs, you need a mobile for that. Told ya, go hang yourself desktop peasant.
Oh, the creators of React, the bloated bullshit frontend experience framework created by colour haired individuals that every brainwashed idiot loves like a plush polar bear.
Time to push back and send the naive + trendy developers to the soon to be established Mars base.
Not sure if I understand you correctly, but the article talked about the friction created by scrolling and "Ctrl+F"ing. Cookie consent, 18+ (I assume you're talking about Reddit), etc are all laws, which I think you would have more luck contacting government officials than a front end dev.
The best part of programming is no one knows, or cares, what tech you used as long as it works, so if you want to make a website out of html, PHP and no JS you're free to do that.
If you want to work with people, you might have to make compromises because people have different opinions, but websites like IG could be built in a weekend by one person anyway, right? /s
The best part of programming is no one knows, or cares, what tech you used as long as it works, so if you want to make a website out of html, PHP and no JS you're free to do that.
If you want to work with people, you might have to make compromises because people have different opinions, but websites like IG could be built in a weekend by one person anyway, right? /s
[deleted]
I disagree with almost all of these conclusions. I appreciate web pages that are sparse and concise. High information density is _not_ generally a good thing.
I like clean websites with lots of space. I don’t mind long scrolling websites, though I don’t particularly like the trend of stupid animations that happen as you scroll down.
I appreciate that “mobile first” has forced web designers to simplify web sites to be concise. Less is more!
I like clean websites with lots of space. I don’t mind long scrolling websites, though I don’t particularly like the trend of stupid animations that happen as you scroll down.
I appreciate that “mobile first” has forced web designers to simplify web sites to be concise. Less is more!
I could say the same about web on desktop. Desktop native is still the best for desktop. Browsers insert friction and are rent seekers.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I’ve been a web developer since before “mobile first”, and since before mobile as a serious web target. Granted when it did become a serious target, we had different terms as well: adaptive and responsive design come to mind. “Mobile first” as a concept was not then—and never has been, for anyone who takes those other concepts seriously—“mobile at the expense of all else”.
What I mean is that quite a lot of these examples and others people frequently cite when complaining about “mobile first” are not inherent to “mobile first” per se. To my mind, they’re an incomplete application of the principle. And the principle became prominent when the inverse problem was more universal: designs (or simply their implementation) targeted desktop first, and added mobile affordances as an afterthought.
“Mobile first” shouldn’t mean that other web experiences aren’t just as important a consideration. Philosophically, it comes from the perspective that a broadly usable and accessible web experience accounts for the most stringent constraints and works out from there.
I distinctly recall solving problems like those discussed in the article well over a decade ago. It was a lot of work. It requires a lot of care and attention to detail. That doesn’t excuse skipping any of it! And it really should be more achievable as the standards have evolved. But it does require dedication to addressing a large matrix of users’ needs and usage conditions.
What I mean is that quite a lot of these examples and others people frequently cite when complaining about “mobile first” are not inherent to “mobile first” per se. To my mind, they’re an incomplete application of the principle. And the principle became prominent when the inverse problem was more universal: designs (or simply their implementation) targeted desktop first, and added mobile affordances as an afterthought.
“Mobile first” shouldn’t mean that other web experiences aren’t just as important a consideration. Philosophically, it comes from the perspective that a broadly usable and accessible web experience accounts for the most stringent constraints and works out from there.
I distinctly recall solving problems like those discussed in the article well over a decade ago. It was a lot of work. It requires a lot of care and attention to detail. That doesn’t excuse skipping any of it! And it really should be more achievable as the standards have evolved. But it does require dedication to addressing a large matrix of users’ needs and usage conditions.
This is definitely not a web-only issue. I have seen the same issue with convergent KDE apps (Qt UI based).
Not an expert in this space but intuitively it feels that what is missing in a widely adopted heuristic of how to "best", or at least, "least-bad" map the information and interactivity components of a given UI to different screen geometries.
It feels like a hard problem to crack: in some cases there might not be a good solution at all. So the heuristic should be able to say "no, what you are trying to do does not match any known Homo Sapiens sensory configurations".
Think e.g. how you would map a large and busy DAW screen [1] with hundreds of dials on a small mobile. You'd probably have to rethink the entire workflow, segment into small chunks, smoothly switch screens while providing summaries and connecting elements etc.
[1] https://soundcamp.org/music-and-sound-production-blog/best-f...
Not an expert in this space but intuitively it feels that what is missing in a widely adopted heuristic of how to "best", or at least, "least-bad" map the information and interactivity components of a given UI to different screen geometries.
It feels like a hard problem to crack: in some cases there might not be a good solution at all. So the heuristic should be able to say "no, what you are trying to do does not match any known Homo Sapiens sensory configurations".
Think e.g. how you would map a large and busy DAW screen [1] with hundreds of dials on a small mobile. You'd probably have to rethink the entire workflow, segment into small chunks, smoothly switch screens while providing summaries and connecting elements etc.
[1] https://soundcamp.org/music-and-sound-production-blog/best-f...
I hate the “hero” UX concept and how everyone uses it in a useless landing page. Scrolling and clicking through endless marketing BS to figure out what you do and why it’s relevant to me. It’s the business equivalent of restaurant sites that don’t put their hours, address, and phone right in your face.
I enjoyed making simple, fast websites using HTML, CSS and a smattering of JS for progressive enhancement, usually with Django on the backend.
Industry got obsessed with JS frameworks made for giganto-orgs as a “solution” for everything.
Eyes became fixated on the claustrophobic mobile-first screens.
Went back to doing primarily graphic design. Less money, much happier.
Industry got obsessed with JS frameworks made for giganto-orgs as a “solution” for everything.
Eyes became fixated on the claustrophobic mobile-first screens.
Went back to doing primarily graphic design. Less money, much happier.
Don't hire this guy, I guess. Mobile first problems was solved like what, 10 years ago? The problem the other way around is still way more prominent. The amount of sites that still can't function normally on any mobile is just silly.
I also wonder how the heat maps looks like during these tests. Let me guess, there are none...
This study doesn't make any practical sense. These pages weren't designed to convey the maximal amount of information in the least amount of space, they were designed to sell a product. It's impossible to claim if these designs have a negative impact due to content dispersion or not unless you are measuring them against the purpose they were designed for.
They explicitly studied ecommerce/product pages here. The relevant metrics are which page had a higher perceived product value? Which page had a higher conversion ratio? Which page resulted in a higher NPS? Which page created a more positive brand affinity?
You don't sell portable speakers using specs, you sell it with aspirational images of it being used on a beach. Of course expanding an accordion of product details then asking "On a scale from 1-7, How well do you feel you understood the offering communicated on the page?" results in a higher survey score. If you said the more dense page converted better, then I would be surprised.
It's like designing a study on the negative impact of hard F1 race car seats, adding a bunch of foam, testing which is more comfortable, then proclaiming one is better than the other because it was rated more comfortable, when the only metric they were designed for is lap time.
They explicitly studied ecommerce/product pages here. The relevant metrics are which page had a higher perceived product value? Which page had a higher conversion ratio? Which page resulted in a higher NPS? Which page created a more positive brand affinity?
You don't sell portable speakers using specs, you sell it with aspirational images of it being used on a beach. Of course expanding an accordion of product details then asking "On a scale from 1-7, How well do you feel you understood the offering communicated on the page?" results in a higher survey score. If you said the more dense page converted better, then I would be surprised.
It's like designing a study on the negative impact of hard F1 race car seats, adding a bunch of foam, testing which is more comfortable, then proclaiming one is better than the other because it was rated more comfortable, when the only metric they were designed for is lap time.
Thank you for saying this, was wondering this all along while reading the article.
They compared the information density of, what is essentially a marketing flyer or a billboard and then stated that it doesn’t convey everything: well that’s the point, an ad is meant to invoke the desire for a product in its viewer, instead of being a spec sheet.
They compared the information density of, what is essentially a marketing flyer or a billboard and then stated that it doesn’t convey everything: well that’s the point, an ad is meant to invoke the desire for a product in its viewer, instead of being a spec sheet.
I'm late to the thread but would like to second this. The design choices the article criticizes aren't the consequence of mobile first design.
Actually websites looked like that in the late 2000's, before responsive design became ubiquitous.
e.g. Apple https://www.versionmuseum.com/history-of/apple-website
Actually websites looked like that in the late 2000's, before responsive design became ubiquitous.
e.g. Apple https://www.versionmuseum.com/history-of/apple-website
> You don't sell portable speakers using specs, you sell it with aspirational images of it being used on a beach
I guess that works for some audiences. For me, this can be a strong signal of low quality bs.
I guess that works for some audiences. For me, this can be a strong signal of low quality bs.
For websites, theoretically it can be tweaked by custom CSS or something, or hopefully author adjust CSS for desktop. What I now hate is portrait videos. It's nonsense except on a portrait phone.
Skimming through the paper format article I struggled to find any grounding. I was curious to see hard numbers such as time to parse information, instead I only see anecdotes like "one participant said".
Not that I agree or disagree with the proposition, just not enough information to form opinion.
Not that I agree or disagree with the proposition, just not enough information to form opinion.
Sorry, desktop, you're gonna have to suck hind tit. Most users are on mobile, so that's what gets targeted.
Even open source is like this now: GNOME, Wayland, and systemd are designed around the most common use cases their developers anticipate and if you fall into one of the more obscure categories... well, tough.
Even open source is like this now: GNOME, Wayland, and systemd are designed around the most common use cases their developers anticipate and if you fall into one of the more obscure categories... well, tough.
given how terrible the mobile web is i refuse to believe anyone is actually doing mobile-first web design
I've been long advocating to get rid of the mobile-first approach and instead embrace a width-agnostic paradigm.
It is possible to ensure that a div or image doesn't stretch too much on desktop by setting the right max-width. It is possible to ensure that a tabular div doesn't overflow on mobile by setting the right width in a responsive @media query.
The problem is that mobile-first has become mobile-only, assuming that 80% will come from those devices and the others will figure out a way to cope with the eyesore. Real responsive design and craft of width is still possible (now like in 2010), but it takes time and testing - resources that companies are more than willing to save, since everybody in tech seems bent on pushing half-baked MVPs nowadays and call them products.
It is possible to ensure that a div or image doesn't stretch too much on desktop by setting the right max-width. It is possible to ensure that a tabular div doesn't overflow on mobile by setting the right width in a responsive @media query.
The problem is that mobile-first has become mobile-only, assuming that 80% will come from those devices and the others will figure out a way to cope with the eyesore. Real responsive design and craft of width is still possible (now like in 2010), but it takes time and testing - resources that companies are more than willing to save, since everybody in tech seems bent on pushing half-baked MVPs nowadays and call them products.
I thought mobile-first web design meant that you start by designing for mobile and then adding features for the bigger screens upward, not to prioritize mobile screens.
> Usability issues of dispersed content include:...
> Increased cognitive load
> Difficulty building a conceptual model for the page
This completely agrees with my own experience. But if these things are true when viewing a "dispersed content" site on a desktop browser, shouldn't they be just as true on mobile? It seems to me that this is a big problem with mobile-first design in general: it's just not the right format for actually conveying conceptual information to users.
This completely agrees with my own experience. But if these things are true when viewing a "dispersed content" site on a desktop browser, shouldn't they be just as true on mobile? It seems to me that this is a big problem with mobile-first design in general: it's just not the right format for actually conveying conceptual information to users.
My favourite dead-end task is when I'm working on some established non-mobile first UI that has often been haphazardly put together with only 13" laptops in mind, and asked to essentially "make it responsive". It's a tiresome conversation to have when the task bleeds into another sprint, usually with a surprised manager who I'm sure could have finished in 1 hour between meetings. Don't forget the tests, QA, managing other PR reviews, participating in pointless meetings, and inane last-minute requirements changes
Pages aren't optimized for conveying information, they're optimized for CTA interaction rates. I don't think a business fundamentally cares about how well a customer understands the product as long as they buy it.
Sorry everyone, but I think if Apple do what they here say ‘bad’, I’d rather believe Apple. Their sales prove their design decisions, with very low content density.
One mobile-first cancer that's becoming increasingly annoying is sites highjacking Ctrl/Shift/Cmd+clicking (used to open links in new tabs).
I paused writing this comment/rant to do a quick search about it and found that someone had already done what I intended to do - write an extension/addon to deal with it:
https://github.com/danielnixon/link-fixer
Thank you Daniel Nixon!
I paused writing this comment/rant to do a quick search about it and found that someone had already done what I intended to do - write an extension/addon to deal with it:
https://github.com/danielnixon/link-fixer
Thank you Daniel Nixon!
Now most of the internet is hinternet, and we're all forced more and more to rely on it. Banking systems, mortgage platforms, car payments, utilities payments are generally designed mobile first, desktop later, they employ various dark techniques for "verifying real user", which break on open platforms, forcing you to access them from iPads and other such locked down devices, or not at all. If hinternet used to be the dark shady streets where hucksters were peddling you knockoff watches, then now hinternet is the dystopian landscape of vertical information integration, ran, behind the scenes, by para-governmental institutions. You can't log in into irs without using id.me, a digital wallet and identity management platform, that sells you things.
There are attempts to cultivate little gardens of sophistication, but they are of mixed success. On a personal level there's a strong disincentive to participate in the hinternet beyond the mandatory, carefully navigating poorly designed and conceived systems just long enough to achieve an objective. One has to login into irs, but one doesn't really need to read that popup and upsell blocked, mobile centric news article.
From this perspective "mobile-first web design" is a symptom removed from its greater context.