1. 40
  1.  

  2. 22

    Yeah, why would anyone want to use a template that takes care of:

    • providing readable typography
    • at all viewport widths
    • in an easy to use package
    • with tons of predefined, drop in components
    • so you can focus on the functionality of your application ?

    That’s like saying we should all go purchase new SuperMicro 1U rackmount servers, and send them off to colocation sites, instead of booting up EC2 instances using some prepackaged PaaS provider, or just doing git push heroku master.

    Yeah, I’ll get right on that.

    (Note: I really dislike bootstrap sites, too. I also work for Heroku)

    1. 4

      I agree with you, but the web certainly feels far more homogenous-looking than it did in early 2000. It’s rare to see a site take risks.

      I feel lucky to have gone for school for CS, rather than graphic design. Too many people seem to insist they have a say on design despite not doing much themselves.

      1. 4

        I agree with you, but the web certainly feels far more homogenous-looking than it did in early 2000. It’s rare to see a site take risks.

        I think you’re misremembering. In 2000 it was very homogenous. 2005-era was maybe more varied, but only a little. Most people are always going to do what’s popular.

        1. 1

          I thought about this some, and realized I was only hanging out in a certain part of the web mostly then (gaming sites).

          The more ‘serious’ sites have always been dreadfully boring.

    2. 12

      Look, it’s designer wank, prioritizing the ephemeral over the substantive. Why wouldn’t I want to visit a site with familiar contours and easy readability? Why wouldn’t I want to build one?

      1. 1

        Yeah man. Plus, why didn’t gopher support in browsers extend into the 21st century anyway? What’s that all about?!

        1. 4

          It just moved to plugins!

      2. 4

        I often find myself visiting these one-page websites, reading through them not being content with the information provided, thinking there is more behind the links on the top right only to find out that these links are just anchors for the different vertical sections of the one page.

        In 1 years, there will be new trends in “web design”. Sometimes I’m thinking that the “web designers” are just forcing trends on each other to keep their “craft” alive. Creating timeless and simple websites will only pay you once after all. It just shows that the entire web sector is one huge bubble waiting to collapse.

        1. 1

          I think pages like the article are very close to timeless (other than the infuriating narrow columns that present-day web design insists on). The text content is front-and-center, the buttons and headings are very straightforward, the design gets out of your way. It’s not a million miles away from http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ , and it’s the opposite of web designers doing things for the sake of web design (indeed a lot of bootstrap-based pages like the article probably never needed to involve a designer at all).

          1. 1

            Admittedly, the page linked in the article is quite lightweight with 500K by today’s standards, but I just don’t see myself looking at the website in 5 years and not considering it old. It’s an insult to compare it to http://motherfuckingwebsite.com, but that’s how it is with taste. :P

            1. 1

              It will look old, for sure; it will not be trendy. But it will be usable and the design will be functional, in the same way as e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/parties/pasnp.shtml . (Note how the most dated aspect of that design - the drop shadows on the buttons - is also the most design-ey).