This thread is bringing the worst of Hacker News out of the woodwork. The author is not claiming to be a design expert, nor is she publishing a "how to design" guide. She's demonstrating a skill which I think a lot of developers could use: taking Bootstrap, which is a good start for a front end these days, and making it not look like Bootstrap. She even says this in TFA. It's for developers without a designer to make their site look half-decent in half an hour. That's the TITLE.
Since we all like MVPs and demo days here, I would think this is applicable to a lot of people on Hacker News. You want to stand apart from the other ten demoing startups that used Bootstrap as well, don't you? Put a little effort in, which is all she is advocating.
Based on the quality of the majority of the comments here it seems like most people opened it, saw the ugly design of the site which is only publishing her work (she didn't design it), made it a few paragraphs in, then ran back to comment about how articles like this are killing our profession, making them ill, making them cry, or how she shouldn't be giving design advice.
Dreadful. Truly dreadful. You're better people than this.
"Based on the quality of the majority of the comments here it seems like most people opened it, saw the ugly design of the site which is only publishing her work (she didn't design it), made it a few paragraphs in, then ran back to comment about how articles like this are killing our profession, making them ill, or making them cry, or how she shouldn't be giving design advice."
Do you not see the irony?
We are visual creatures, we judge a book by its cover (and the only time we don't do that is if we know the author or it's recommended to us) That site reminded me of Geocities (though not as bad), I'm already put off from reading it. That was my first impression. But with so many comments, I forced myself to read through it.
With a bad taste in the reader's mouth, they start off immediately with a negative impression, which could explain why a lot of negative comments.
My issue is that the author thinks half an hour is sufficient enough to make a their site look 'half-decent' or make it non-boot strap like. As a non-designer, it's not that easy. Her points are valid though, just a lil optimistic with the time.
Another easy way to make it non boot strap like is get rid of the gradient on the buttons. Go flat with a border, ala Google Style.
That's a fair point, even if it's unfair to the author (the site publishing her could use some work, granted). If one does bail on the article, though, I wish that wouldn't lead to a comment of some kind.
As the publisher of said site, an honest, genuine question to you both (or any who share their opinion) - what is it about the site design that turns you off so much? What 'work' does it need, in your view?
I'd suggest removing all the 'complicated' layering effect and transparencies. Even hovers over the year links are creating transparencies on the article text. Just leave the article text area 100% opaque, lighten the background to improve contrast. I want to read easily and not off a weave basket.
There is a tad too much variation/combo of the colors used. You have red and grey (which is good) but you have a gazillion shades of it (not good) and you have them alternating roles, ie: red text, red box, grey text, grey box, dark grey text, dark grey box - tighten your color usage. Since your colors usage are everywhere, there's no accent color. (Like I can't tell which color is used to declare text links since all text colors can be text links)
The red is a very strong color - and since author box is in red, it's competing with the article for attention (the article should be the main focus. But it doesn't mean you should make the article box red.)
Move Date under Year (navigation) or move the year next to date - don't make the readers' eyes/brain work, trying to correlate the 2.
Don't show links that aren't clickable and will never have content. ie: Year 1999 etc. Just start from 2005.
Overall the page is super busy with its big range of color shades, layering with transparencies and confusing visual hierarchy/navigation.
Just as another opinion, I love the design of the site. I saw 24ways a couple of years ago, was truly amazed at the "different" design. I still think the same design is truly unique and captivating.
Just to get some other opinions out there.. It would be nice if it responded more for large screens instead of only handling the small ones, but I love the look of the site.
For me it is all the watermarking effects, with background and foreground elements becoming merged. This creates a cluttered effect needlessly, because without these I think the site would be a lot more pleasant to look at with no other changes.
The big red site title at the top is obscured by the "HOME", "ARCHIVES", etc. boxes below it to the point that it's actually difficult to read. The color choices in that section make everything hard to read. It's not important (I come for the content, not the site title) but it demands attention by taking up half the page and containing horribly clashing colors.
It's just far too busy. There's a white button title on top of a semi-transparent gray button which is on top of a darker gray background which is on top of big red letters which are on top of some sort of weird faux-paper diagonal strips. It's like there was an explosion in the layer factory, and it increases the effort needed to actually read the text beyond what I'm willing to put in.
I also wouldn't do exactly the same thing regarding the transparencies (maybe kill the extension of the year/day highlights behind the primary white-ish content area, and just only have those highlights be visible in the framing area?), but my first reaction was actually "oh, cool, a site daring to have a bold design and go its own way instead of trying to look 'beautiful' like most of the bland sites posted here."
So don't tone it down too much. You can't please everyone, and there's a big design echo-chamber on here. And actually, on second thought, maybe I wouldn't change it at all. Be bold and distinctive. Own it. Design isn't about toning stuff down to the lowest common denominator.
And I love the ease of navigation provided by the top year bar and side day bar.
For what its worth (and I'm no designer): I really like the mobile version of your design. The text is easy readable, the sections clear and there is no annoying clutter.
He definitely means once all the weird column/row effects and text are gone. The site becomes simply, with your header, your content wrapper, and the content. It's a lot nicer at that point.
The longer I look at the desktop version, the more I like it, but my first reaction was not good. It's too much. (I'm a hacker, not a designer, btw)
When I said "ugly site" in my original comment, I meant from the perspective of a person leaving vitriol on the thread here. So, ugly to them, not to me. I realize now on second read that probably isn't clear, but I have to let it stand. Forgive the seemingly-direct attack.
I think your site is visually striking, but it's a wee bit busy for me. That's all.
Can you imagine an article about writing clearly and effectively whch ws wrtn all lik dis??!# It sez good shit, wy u care f its all txtspk?
No, you need to avoid demonstrating the opposite of what you're setting out to teach at the very first moment. Don't put an obvious SQL injection in the form that leads to your article on web security. Don't use a hyperactive loudmouth to promote your massage therapy business. And don't put an article about web design on a site that hurts the eyes.
Is it her fault? I guess not, although I imagine she knew what the site looked like even if she didn't actually design it. Does it mean that the content is worthless? Of course not. Is it a huge red flag that really should not be there? Oh yes.
2. It still looks like bootstrap. Telling people, "use bootstrap, but quickly change the fonts and colors and maybe add some images" isn't helpful. I wouldn't mind an article outlining how to use LESS to make bootstrap not look like bootstrap (which would involve, at a minimum, not using a 12-column grid, because I associate that with bootstrap more than anything else). And that seems like something developers should be interested in.
3. There are an ungodly number of blog posts that say, "use bootstrap, but change the fonts etc so that it doesn't look like bootstrap." The specific details: "use textures" for example, made the example site look worse, so it's hard to see what this article added.
Can you really identify the number of columns being used by looking at a layout? And is Bootstrap the only one to use 12-columns?
I've used Bootstrap as a starting point for several apps and have modified the grid setup before, but it wasn't because I thought it looked like Bootstrap.
I probably can't guess the number of columns in the grid just by looking at the webpage, but tons of landing pages break up their explanation/details into 2 or 3 columns below the header, and (I suspect) that's a direct result of Bootstrap's 12 column grid.
And that's all fine, because it gives these pages a standard structure so that they're easy to navigate and I wouldn't suggest that people change it just for its own sake. If there's a good reason to change it, definitely do it, but otherwise leave it alone.
I'm not anti-bootstrap and, to my untrained eye, it encourages pretty good design. My only point is that it takes a lot more than changing fonts and colors to make a website look not-bootstrappy, so one should only make the changes and tweaks that have a specific purpose. Changing the colors to match other websites within the same organization makes sense, but changing the colors because, to quote the article, "that button and that menu still both look awfully Bootstrappy" doesn't make sense, unless you are a designer.
> I wouldn't mind an article outlining how to use LESS to make bootstrap not look like bootstrap (which would involve, at a minimum, not using a 12-column grid, because I associate that with bootstrap more than anything else). And that seems like something developers should be interested in.
Mostly, I just find it frustrating that you and the author are presuming that taking Bootstrap and, as self-proclaimed non-designers, "making it not look like Bootstrap" is a good thing. Good design isn't just a thing that happens when you put a cool font on a photo. I'd be less irked if the article was about finding and installing great Bootstrap themes.
Also: 24 Ways' design has, and has had, an excellent design for years and years. The colors are a bit interesting, but the typography and layout is wonderful.
Also also: you're building quite the straw man there. No one said the article was killing anything, illing anything, or making anyone cry.
I definitely wouldn't take the author's design advice, though.
> Also also: you're building quite the straw man there. No one said the article was killing anything, illing anything, or making anyone cry.
jspthrowaway2 was paraphrasing other comments on this page. When this article was newer, all of the top comments where about how terrible the design is. Here are some direct quotes from other comments on this story:
> the fact that this person is trying to promote this exact idea makes me ill
> I'm crying. Why is this the #1 story? And how can a person with such a hideous looking site give design advice?
> We're supposed to take design advice from a site that looks like a car accident? No thanks.
Your comment was the direct inspiration for mine and I hated everything about it. It wasn't good enough for you to share your opinion as a designer, you had to attack the author personally because she had the gall to design a bit even though she wasn't a bloody designer. Really attacking the messenger. Half of me suspected you and others reacted as you did because she's a woman, to be quite honest, even though I know that's probably untrue; that just tells you how much I loathed your comment.
Suffice to say, this thread is reflecting pretty badly on you as a person and you should reconsider your attitude.
Accusing me of sexism is completely out of line. I attacked the author professionally because I don't think she's right about design. Professionally, I lauded her programming and writing accomplishments in another comment, and I'm sure she's perfectly qualified to write about those topics. I'd gladly learn from them. Personally, I have no idea who the author is. I'm sure she's a wonderful person.
Regardless, I'm done here. I'd be happy to have a civil discussion on the matter, but it's clear you're not capable. Passive-aggressively calling me sexist while hiding behind a throwaway account is trolling, plain and simple, and tolerating you isn't worth my time.
There was no passive aggressive accusation made; I simultaneously shared with you what came to mind when I read your comment, then gave you the benefit that you weren't being that low. Read for comprehension, please. I'm just sharing with you my thought process on your original comment, which was entirely out of line. I'm not making that up: my first thought was "this reaction is due to her gender, isn't it?" which tells you how far out of line it was. That's the only reason I'm sharing it. Slow down, guilty conscience; I'm not accusing you of sexism.
I cycle through throwaways so that I don't reflect awfully upon myself as a person when someone misunderstands me as intentionally and flagrantly as you have. See, now, I know never to consider you as a designer on any project I ever do, based on your elitism and how you've behaved in this thread. I have a $20 in my wallet that says I'm not the only one, I'm just being vocal about it. That should be important to you, since you're a freelancer. You don't get the same privilege with me, which is why I prefer anonymity.
> trolling
Har. I get accused of this a lot, and I'm starting to read it as "yeah? well? your mom!" in my head. If I were trolling you, you wouldn't know it and certainly wouldn't be able to accuse me of it. I think it's because people are surprised I have the audacity to tell them what's wrong with them, and it makes them uncomfortable; so, by default, I must be an evil troll.
The rest of Hacker News upvoted my comment -- basically a direct shot at you and the other mediocre designers that were made uncomfortable by this article, and the most upvoted on any account I've ever had (what does that tell you?) -- and even after reading it you ran back into this thread being an elitist jerk to everybody who was trying to have a productive conversation about the article. You, and elitist people like you in any walk of life, are cancerous, and I'm investing time telling you that so you can stop doing it. Stop doing it.
I think "dreadful" is really harsh. Every site should not look like default bootstrap. That would be incredibly boring.
But, that said, I think it would have been better without everything between the font change and the color scheme change removed. For example, the icon is an additional unnecessary visual element- either use text or an icon- if you have both it means that one or the other is insufficient on their own and that is a bad design smell -> simplify! Textures are ok, but a bad example- the only change I could tell was the missing horizontal rules/grey lines. The alpine background- meh, even for a ski lodge- this isn't a cheesy blog. The CSS change I could barely tell.
Agree that adding an icon on the button is useless, but as I work with developers, I see that it's the way some developers understand UI and UX - adding an icon equals designing! As for the textures, I suggest myself everybody using subtle patterns, but, again, the mistake here is adding an extra alpine background image: the thing I saw several times when developers tried to make efforts in UI, lol! But the good thing is that this topic really makes people react!
The CSS change is only visible in the screenshot that introduced the background image. In that screenshot, a white glow effect has been applied to the main header.
Since we all like MVPs and demo days here, I would think this is applicable to a lot of people on Hacker News. You want to stand apart from the other ten demoing startups that used Bootstrap as well, don't you? Put a little effort in, which is all she is advocating.
Based on the quality of the majority of the comments here it seems like most people opened it, saw the ugly design of the site which is only publishing her work (she didn't design it), made it a few paragraphs in, then ran back to comment about how articles like this are killing our profession, making them ill, making them cry, or how she shouldn't be giving design advice.
Dreadful. Truly dreadful. You're better people than this.