Every Fucking Bootstrap Website Ever (2019)(dagusa.com) |
Every Fucking Bootstrap Website Ever (2019)(dagusa.com) |
Shoot.
So what should be done to appease you? Add some corporate memphis? Maybe do some cool brutalist stuff that gets designers excited and that no other human being in the world wants?
> Honestly this template does look really nice, though.
I used to think that was bad. But compared to the javascript applications of today that don't even have text or images unless your run their code those sites were/are at least functional.
The author is trying to be funny, but newsflash: Most people want to get shit done.
Honestly, the only reason I am not using ProtonMail is because of the gaudi colors. There is a serious lack of Swiss-ness in their design; aesthetically and functionally.
If the joke is everything looks the same, then it also needs a sticky nav, ask for ur email, and ask if you like cookies.
- an auto-playing ad covering the top half of the screen
- a cookie pop-up with “Accept All” dark patterned in and covering the bottom half of the screen
- a full screen email prompt popup once you interact with the page in any way
Hopefully that is actually the site owner's number and not someone else's.
Consistency is a good thing, whether it's on a phone or on the web.
I find the easiest thing is to change the primary color and then remove border radii and you're golden - no-one notices or complains.
What I'm saying is, the next big thing, for marketing in particular, may very well be derided in this same "Hey look..." manner after it takes off in popularity, but the pioneers of that next big thing are going to reap serious profits.
Realistically, most people who browse the web don't care too much about website design and just want something reasonably functional that's not too ugly.
I see no reason supermarkets couldn't do similar once this sort of tech gets prolific enough.
The first and only thing I do is find the link in the top right that leads to a more traditional page that actually contains useful information (e.g., Docs, FAQs, About).
The template in the article is exact opposite. It conveys bloat, unoriginality and impedes efficient communication of information.
Information hierarchies have a bunch of channels to get the reader to understand what's important and what's not. Text size, color, motion, placement, rotation, contrast, images, etc. all contribute to drawing the eye to key pieces of information.
The link you presented is simple, yes, but the information hierarchy is nearly flat. It presents all the information as equally important by reducing the channels for information transmission it uses.
Our eyes focus on certain details because we have monkey brains that have been trained to pattern match certain things.
Also, people can make uninspired designs with just about any framework.
<!-- Mirrored from adventurega.me/bootstrap/ by HTTrack Website Copier/3.x [XR&CO'2014], Sun, 01 May 2016 13:01:44 GMT -->
The original rant from 6 years ago is here.
https://devrant.com/rants/75712/http-adventurega-me-bootstra...
> <!-- Mirrored from adventurega.me/bootstrap/ by HTTrack Website Copier/3.x [XR&CO'2014], Sun, 01 May 2016 13:01:33 GMT -->
It was through this template that I fell in love with just making things, even if it wasn't original, or groundbreaking, it felt good to start digging into code, understanding the recipe behind the product. Here I am now, working on full-fledged software, happier than ever in what I'm doing, and it all started because of "this fucking template".
The point of Bootstrap was to "make the default web beautiful". The better question is the poster feels the need to piss on everyone else's work.
Me: "Sure, here, allow me to spend 5 weeks, 40 hours a week, developing a custom website for you. Wait, no, here is your cookie cutter website that I slapped together in 30 minutes. We good?"
Client: "No. I read this article that was called "HEY LOOK, IT'S EVERY BOOTSTRAP WEBSITE EVER" so I want more than a cookie cutter template. Please spend 5 weeks, 40 hours a week, and give me a fantastic website for $399."
Me: "OK. Sounds reasonable after all."
There is a twinge of pain that I feel in the corporatization of the internet, and the loss of fun that used to be so present, but I cannot in good faith deny the level of predictability and ease-of-use that comes with standard templates like that one. It's clean and to the point. It's nice to look at. It's so common because it's such an excellent design. Get the point across, offer a little bit of detail further down, offer contact info for those who are still interested.
I also really appreciate the lack of one of those tedious "not-a-popup popups" that so many websites have gone with, where they try to get you to sign up for a newsletter of a website that they couldn't be bothered to update their copyright info in the last 2 years.
Many sites are just transactions. I’m there to get some info.
If it looks like other sites, fine by me. I know what to do.
More often than not I’m annoyed by special sites where i just want some info.
> Honestly this template does look really nice, though.
Carefully crafted, unique designs of all sorts should be appreciated and lauded, but shitting on anyone who doesn't live up to that high standard doesn't seem terribly productive to me.
(Also, I'm not an actual web developer, but when scrolling through the site I did find myself thinking, "Huh, if I need a website in the future maybe I'll just use this template.")
I just pick something that uses stock bootstrap and adjust the colors, shapes, sizes, and font to taste. Add some extra utility classes or widgets. Maybe an icon library and a logo or two. If you’re looking for it, you may notice it’s bootstrap. At least it looks like someone put work into it.
Not everything needs to be novel. It's ok to just be a functional, nice looking, boring basic-bitch website, right?
It might be the pumpkin spice latte of websites, but just because it's popular and basic doesn't mean it's not valuable.
Let people enjoy things.
Putting zero thought behind UX isn’t the pinnacle of UX despite what we celebrate on HN.
To some extent, the majority determines what is utilitarian. Once Bootstrap achieved mass familiarity, it became utilitarian -- because almost everyone knows how to interact with it, the flow, the location of the information.
I checked out the site you shared -- it is indeed utilitarian...but it is also unfamiliar and hence to me, it makes it more difficult to find the required information at a glance.
while I agree with you in theory, As a business operator, i'd rather win the customer than win the academic debate.
Product websites actively try to distinguish themselves, to make you feel that the product is unique and convince you it'll make your life better. Having the same style of website for every product ever feels like something that'd actively go against the goal of the website. After all, if two things look the same, why would I pick one over the other?
But what's ridiculous is breakfast being served on a shovel.
Or a plaster mould of the chef's mouth.
Or spaghetti being just dumped all over the table.
If you're talking about a business that needs to market to customers through a website; I agree with you.
But I thought OP is talking about efficient communication which I what I responded to. Every comment response is completely misunderstanding where I am coming from.
But this one was just baffling on another level. Like...what do you think supermarkets exist for? Just for people to look around and go "Neat! They put a whole chicken in a can!"?[0]
[0] There actually IS a supermarket like that though. It's called Omega Mart, and it's a tourist attraction in Las Vegas. They sell weird shit like a household cleaning spray called "Who Told You This Was Butter? Seriously, Don't Eat This", "Emergency Clams", and a laundry detergent called "Plausible Deniability". But even in the case of Omega Mart, you can still buy all the products.
Here are some resources to educate yourself:
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/visual-hierarchy-ux-definit...
https://xd.adobe.com/ideas/process/information-architecture/...
https://uxplanet.org/visual-hierarchy-and-ux-design-a-guide-...
https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/visual-...
https://guides.lib.wayne.edu/iaux
It's a field of study that has research to back it up. It's great you find that link legible, but most people would not. Even most developers would find it helpful to tweak whitespace, use headers, and layout the content a little more structured to improve legibility.
The entire field is like nutrition or fitness, 90% of it is bogus and made up. None of these studies have proper controlled experiments while still trying to appear as authoritative.
No one takes a step back and realize that physical books are an interface and so is your kitchen. Photons hitting your eyeballs have no clue if it came from a computer monitor or the world around you. Organizing visual information is far deeper than these "UI/UX" experts.
Finally, we can use holograms for something mundane!
However, the idea is ridiculous enough to greenlight.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q=Djamasbi%2C%20S.%2C%20...
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q=Djamasbi%2C%20S.%2C%20...
https://ourapps.princeton.edu/uploads/190805104123-A-3176.pd...
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.87...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780124081383/eye-trackin...
I'm sorry, you just don't know what you are talking about. This is a widely studied area in human computer interaction both academically and informally.
The basic scrutiny agrees with me, and the sources are to help provide both subjective and objective reference that shows that, yes, the common person would prefer a more structured layout.