import { Button } from "@/components/ui/button"
import {
Tooltip,
TooltipContent,
TooltipProvider,
TooltipTrigger,
} from "@/components/ui/tooltip"
export default function TooltipDemo() {
return (
<TooltipProvider>
<Tooltip>
<TooltipTrigger render={<Button variant="noShadow" />}>
Hover
</TooltipTrigger>
<TooltipContent>
<p>Add to library</p>
</TooltipContent>
</Tooltip>
</TooltipProvider>
)
}
<button type="submit" title="Add to library!">Hover</button>These pages are closer to "neobrutalism" or what I would call "Cybermod" [0], I think...
Maybe also could be described as Post Layervault as I don’t recall a website using so many primary colors and flat shading before they made it cool.
“Neobrutalism” might be wrong in concept, but it was coined around 2023, that ship has sailed.
> “Neobrutalism” might be wrong in concept, but it was coined around 2023, that ship has sailed.
Who cares. It's 2026. All it takes to sink a sailing ship is a few determined gents in a motorboat. It's called Post-Corporate Memphis!
How is brutalism defined in this context? When I think web brutalism I think Craigslist style sites and reduction of superfluous design elements.
Brutalist web design (which is really popular with artists, musicians and designers) is a beautiful style that leaves a lot of room for creativity, whereas this stuff is formulaic garbage.
As a style that requires bright contrasting borders and heavy shadows, this is not particularly pleasant as a dark theme. See the “Hardbrut” in dark mode, posted elsewhere in this thread. The white “shadows” are an eye sore.
Dark/light, accent colors but otherwise no customization. Going after standardized ui. Css blob with builtin font, or no font. Kotlin components as well
This component library and the LLM default interpretation of the style is very much "in your face."
As an example, the black scrollbar here[0] is very heavy, a component which isn't meant to be looked at, but is distracting on first glance.
Prompting an LLM to make "lightly styled" neobrutalist is much more pleasing to my eyes, but maybe I'm alone in that.
I will say I'm afraid to use this style because Gemini seems to love it so much and therefore users will make assumptions about how the website was created.
For example, in the Bootstrap days everything looked like Bootstrap and users got used to that, even if users hadn't specifically heard of the CSS framework.
I'm normally quite unopinionated on UI styles, but there's something about this style that feels actively hostile to my ability to concentrate on the content. It's not so much that I don't like it, it's just uncomfortable visually to me.
I assume it's only me, but would be interested if others have the same problem.
No need to mess around further.
alongside infinite tangentially related features, because it lacks intention but the creator was stuck in a bout of AI psychosis
here, on the other hand, I’m wondering why they would even release this, as it should be a component for more intentional vibe coding. A Claude design template masqueraded as a whole framework
Since mine is just a hacky vibe-coded single css file, I might switch to yours with a custom colour scheme.
This is a very easy sell for me because everything these days is doing the infuriating gray text on gray background.
béton brut means "raw concrete" in French, and in architecture that's what brutalism is. I'd say only sites that look like they use the default style of HTML with no CSS on Netscape 1.x could be called "brutalist"...
E.g. https://stallman.org
IMO the design is more "Windows 3.1 Hot Dog Stand Theme" https://blog.codinghorror.com/a-tribute-to-the-windows-31-ho... combined with MS WordArt...
I agree, but maybe just not on the Netscape 1.x part. Brutalism in all of it's forms has never been about traditionalism. Even if concrete wasn't a new matieral in the 50s, you can't say something like Église Notre-Dame du Haut [0] is following any sort of traditional church architecture.
Brutalism on the web to me would focus more on honesty. An honest website shows you the processes your browser is undertaking, and how that results in rendering it's purpose. Images should load in progressively, any layout tables/divs/scaffolding shouldn't be invisible, a link/button/headings should behave/look how they "natively" do in whatever browser you happen to be using (not specifically netscape 1.x). If you're writing a cookie to the current session, I want to see that state reflected on the page. If I see a process happening I don't like, I should be able to stop it.
That doesn't have to look old or be unstyled. But there's certainly a way that letting hypertext just sort of "exist" makes a website more honest. All things considered right now, I'd say honesty is a pretty non-traditional adjective for the web haha.
1996:
https://web.archive.org/web/19961227172043/http://www.useit....
2001:
https://web.archive.org/web/20010711195207/http://www.useit....
Constantly reminded why I gladly left the design space, can't stand people who think design should be siloed or interpreted this way.
> Neobrutalism is a mix of regular brutalism in web design and more modern typography, illustration, and animation standards. Neobrutalism refuses the usual components of UX-UI design and embraces uncomfortable design elements, and it is more fearless to use distinctive color palettes.
Broadly, it's a move away from flat, low contrast Material-type UIs and also away from the 'gradients and curves' AI-era designs and back into something that's more like the early web.
Edit: I just saw another person say this, and it described the style of the sample sites so much better than "neobrutalism" that I just had to add this, these samples look so much more like Bauhaus!
neobrutalism should have sharp edges, very vibrant saturated colors, and virtually none of these flowery spiral shapes. (neo)brutalism is forcing a square peg in a round hole with a hammer, and leaving it like that on purpose, because the raw swedge is the aethetic.
If I create something called Neo-Cuisine, you'd expect the result to be edible. If I see something calling itself "Neo-Brutalist Architecture", I'd expect it to look like Brutalism, or have some hallmark of the style. e.g. raw, but a different material new to the time period).
As far as web design, there's nothing "raw" about 100s of dependencies and animated charts and rounded rects and opinionated fonts and the rest of the this pastiche in "64 components, charts and star shapes for React and Tailwind v4. Built on shadcn/ui and Base UI." This is just Corporate Memphis + dialog aesthetics[0]
the very point of brutalism is to turn its material 'inside out', what defines brutalism is that it makes the material and structural elements it's made of visible. It's not a 'visual style' or an aesthetic at all but an 'ethic of construction' something was brutalist if it was honest, and exposed, what a thing was made of.
If you want to apply that notion to web design It's not about 1 CSS file or 100 but whether the mechanics of CSS or HTML are still visible on the site, or if it's all buried under colors, animations, styling etc. Craigslist is a pretty good example of a brutalist website, so is this site, HN.
If you look at brutalist buildings, it becomes obvious that its looks are the results of intentional design completely removed from its underlying "structural" concerns. You don't accidentally arrive there by refusing to think about aesthetics or by just being "honest".
What brutalists meant when they talked about honesty or the ethic of design is that the building should reflect on the outside, its construction, its social purpose, and its function. Obviously that's a visual choice, but not an aesthetic one.
And the fact that so many people, including you reach for the description of it as 'ugly' proves that point. They weren't trying to appeal to some established notion of taste, or some aesthetic school that prioritizes the appearance of a thing over its function but the opposite.