[HN Gopher] W3C Beta Website
___________________________________________________________________
W3C Beta Website
Author : TangerineDream
Score : 57 points
Date : 2023-02-27 20:39 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (beta.w3.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (beta.w3.org)
| Waterluvian wrote:
| The responsiveness of this website is what I thought things were
| going to be like for all of the internet.
| synergy20 wrote:
| all it has is jquery3 + bootstrap4, still amazing.
| VPenkov wrote:
| I like it. It's easy to be against change and difficult to get
| behind it.
|
| Maybe in attracting developers who criticize it, some will end up
| finding something educational. The homepage could be more useful,
| especially around the ways to contribute. But the main categories
| are right there in the first sentence of the first section, and
| the data structures makes sense.
|
| Good job!
| GordonS wrote:
| I agree, it looks good! On mobile in particular, it looks
| _refreshingly_ good and feels very functional.
| synergy20 wrote:
| What is used to build this site? some SSG, or SSR, or SPA, or a
| CMS like wordpress? check its html source showed jquery 3.5.1 and
| bootstrap 4.
|
| Also liked this newly updated page:
| https://www.raspberrypi.com/documentation/ and it's using
| jquery1.x still.
|
| now I start to wonder all those new SSG|SSR trend along with SPA,
| maybe bootstrap + jquery combination is good enough?
| tekbog wrote:
| sad.
| Gualdrapo wrote:
| Not sure why previous comments are so harsh towards its design.
|
| The very header copy says the W3C strives to help people build
| web based on several principles, and accessibility is listed
| first. And this design resembles that - a strong focus on
| accessibility and feeling familiar and usable for most people. I
| don't think doing a "less overused" design in there would keep
| that goal in focus.
| jchw wrote:
| Truth be told, there is no reason to believe that what is
| popular in web design is particularly good for accessibility or
| the sensibilities of people. In fact, I'd argue "Corporate
| Memphis" in particular is something that became overused in
| spite of the fact that it offended sensibilities for many.
|
| That said, I think over-applying the "accessibility" viewpoint
| to bleed into things that really don't have to do with
| accessibility is an anti-pattern. I do not feel like KDE is
| less "accessible" due to the artwork and character mascots of
| Tyson Tan, even though it may not appeal to everyone's
| sensibilities. At the end of the day, I'd argue in favor of
| unique and memorable designs that feel like they have some
| personality rather than like something a committee carefully
| constructed to be as inoffensive as they could imagine.
| tannhaeuser wrote:
| So that's what W3C, Inc. is onto these days? I thought they were
| into standardizing HTML etc., meaning they follow a process to
| take HTML review drafts from the whatwg github repo ultimately to
| recommendation status these days? At least that's what their HTML
| WG charter says they do in Februars, but they didn't, when last
| year their review resulted in Steve Faulkner's major edit of the
| HTML spec to get rid of novel heading level interpretation and
| the so-called "outlining algorithm" - one of the original
| innovations that came with Ian Hickson's HTML5.
| tiffanyh wrote:
| Information density.
|
| One thing I really dislike over the last 10+ years the web has
| brought is a huge reduction in information density.
|
| W3C old site was great at being dense on content/info. This site
| is not.
| mhitza wrote:
| If the designer is reading this thread. My fellow human, please
| swap out the corporate memphis landing page image with something
| that's less overused in web design today.
| metadaemon wrote:
| May be a facet of the page they have no control over and is a
| bit besides the point
| klabb3 wrote:
| For people who don't know, Corporate Memphis (aka Alegria,
| Homoglobo) is a style of illustrations that features extrahuman
| attributes, such as non proportional bodies and non-existing
| skin colors. It has been credited to Facebook, and was
| explicitly made to be modular (as in designers are
| replaceable).
|
| Obviously beauty is subjective, but to me this style has strong
| connotations of cynical corporations, eerie feelings of
| minimalist facelessness, toxic positivity and an anxious
| alignment with current political winds, clear enough to
| minimize scrutiny but vague enough to be entirely unactionable.
| The mood words are growth hacking and user engagement.
| tannhaeuser wrote:
| Not only that, there's also the Islamic/Hadith ban of depicting
| any person, making this a particular bad idea (if the reduction
| to role models in a corporate memphis style graphic isn't
| dehumanizing enough in itself).
| [deleted]
| andrewguy9 wrote:
| I clicked hoping it was Warcraft 3 beta.
|
| Blizzard please give us Warcraft 4.
| raziel31 wrote:
| I liked the hover effect on the navbar buttons. It's simple, but
| it gives a kind of cartoonish effect.
| jacooper wrote:
| Unlike most comments here, I think this is very well made!, its
| much better than the original site, easy to read, easy to
| understand and invitijg to learn more about W3C, rather than an
| old website telling to stay away.
|
| I think Debian should do the same, its much better now, but its
| no fedora website.
| azemetre wrote:
| Back in the day there use to be a joke website called "every
| fucking bootstrap site" [1] where it would lambast the popular
| design zeitgeist of the time.
|
| I really wish websites would opt for more distinctive looks
| rather than the massive homogenization we see across the web.
| Everything looks the same when it doesn't have to. Things can be
| stylized while accounting for accessibility and usability.
|
| I don't know what to call this "feeling" but man is it
| depressing. We went from replicating magazines to making unique
| (and often clashing) home pages to trying to appeal to the most
| average of sensibilities where it all becomes counter intuitive.
|
| Probably not fair to pin this on w3c because this can easily
| apply to several hundred other sites.
|
| It really does make you question why bother having a time of
| designers, frontend developers, project managers, etc, etc to
| just come up with the exact same thing as everyone else.
|
| [1] https://www.dagusa.com/
| metadaemon wrote:
| To be fair, I'm not sure you want a ton of uniqueness when it
| comes to documentation, I just want to be able to find what I'm
| looking for. For example, IBM and ESRI have what I would
| consider to be terrible documentation because of their unique
| take on structure.
| stillsleepy wrote:
| [dead]
| bastawhiz wrote:
| I don't know, if there's ever a website that I want to be
| boring and readable, it's the W3C. I do not want an exciting or
| unique W3C site. I want it to be organized and designed to be
| as readable and easily navigable as possible. I do not want to
| guess how to use a menu or search for links. I want it to work
| like that thousands of other boring sites I've used before,
| because when I'm at the W3C, I'm not there to be inspired, I'm
| there to get some specific information. I don't want any
| nonsense between me and the spec I'm looking for.
| strangescript wrote:
| It kind of depends on what your app is/does. It would be kind
| of hypocritical that we all settled on the same form factors
| for mobile devices, but we want the apps that we use on them to
| all be radically different looking or "artistic".
|
| Most modern UI kits look and feel the same because we have
| figured out what works and what doesn't.
|
| "why bother having a time of designers" -- on an individual
| basic application level, definitely. Just get a reasonable UI
| kit and save the money.
| somethingAlex wrote:
| I think certain fads are a little dreadful in terms of
| unoriginality - those humaaans illustrations, for example. But
| I think most of the web really should look similar. I think of
| brochure websites like resumes: you're trying to depict key
| points without distractions and obstacles. Just like that one
| person's "unique" resume is actually the last one you want to
| read, so is that unnecessarily "original" website.
| leethomas wrote:
| I disagree, I think a degree of homogenization is good for
| information heavy websites, like government ones [1][2][3] and
| sites geared towards documentation. Consistency here is good
| because it makes things familiar and therefore means people
| spend less time trying to figure things out/find what they're
| looking for. Creativity isn't necessarily the point with sites
| like these. Now if you're marketing a product or showcasing
| something on the creative side, that's a different situation
| entirely and in that case I agree with you. The Bootstrap wave
| 10 years ago was indeed excessive.
|
| [1] https://18f.gsa.gov/
|
| [2] https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/project-
| gigabit-...
|
| [3] https://www.healthcare.gov/
| gkoberger wrote:
| I agree with you... except this IS the W3C, and the whole point
| is they set standards for websites. If they looked nothing like
| every other site, that'd actually be a bigger problem.
| mbb70 wrote:
| I'd know those FontAwesome icons on
| https://beta.w3.org/developers/ anywhere.
|
| Honestly though consistency is probably preferred here. I see
| top nav, a hamburger icon, a breadcrumb title bar and a search
| button, I have confidence in my expectations for how those will
| behave. With a documentation site, the ability to navigate and
| find what you need takes precedence over being 'delighted' by
| some landing page.
|
| Actually in this case they broke my expectation by having the
| search just redirect to duckduckgo with a site parameter.
|
| The Memphis seems like a decently modern take as well with the
| gradients thrown in.
| riffic wrote:
| bikeshedding isn't helpful.
| superpope99 wrote:
| Do you have have any good examples of useful and visually
| interesting websites?
| wbobeirne wrote:
| I disagree with this specifically for the W3C on everything
| _except_ the illustration on the front, which I have dubbed
| "big pants people." That's an unnecessarily homogenous design
| trend, but everything else is homogenous for the purposes of
| readability and accessibility, which is very inline with the
| W3C.
| CharlesW wrote:
| https://www.fastcompany.com/90711508/facebook-made-a-
| certain...
|
| > _The look became derisively known as "globohomo" (global
| homogenization), "corporate Memphis," or--even more
| archly--"corporate tech style."_
| [deleted]
| IceHegel wrote:
| As a white male internet user, I don't feel well represented by a
| black man, a muslim woman, or a disabled person.
|
| Unclear if that was the intention of the diagram or not.
| samtp wrote:
| I think your self-confidence needs a giant boost if you are a
| white male who is "concerned about being represented".
|
| Why don't you go and check the executive boards for the
| companies listed in the "Working with stakeholders of the Web"
| section to help soothe your fragile ego.
| ElijahLynn wrote:
| Related: "W3C welcomes feedback on the beta of its new website" -
| https://beta.w3.org/news/2023/w3c-welcomes-feedback-on-the-b...
| albatross13 wrote:
| As an asian american male, I don't feel very represented by: an
| african american male, a (seemingly) muslim woman, or a disabled
| white woman.
|
| Swing and a miss, W3C.
| vsviridov wrote:
| Pandering... Pandering everywhere.
| albatross13 wrote:
| Hey man, nothing wrong with wanting to ensure your racial
| demographic is explicitly represented alongside others that
| are being explicitly represented!
| raziel31 wrote:
| maybe because w3 stands for "WORLD WIDE Web Consortium"? there
| is not only USA in this world, it is funny that you are
| interfering with the rest of the world for your own social and
| political problems.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| Asians only live in the USA? I know blaming everything on the
| US is trendy, but I'm not sure about this one...
| IceHegel wrote:
| I sense a projection.
| jjdeveloper wrote:
| Looking at the code on their site a saw this 'class="not-
| sidebar"' ... why describe what something is when you can
| describe what it isn't! :D
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-27 23:00 UTC)