
The web looks like shit - jgrahamc
https://theoutline.com/post/1165/the-web-looks-like-shit
======
rayiner
As someone who grew up on the web circa 1998, I find the modern web to be
shit. The old web flew on my 300 MHz PII with 256 Kbps DSL. The new web crawls
on a quad core i7 with 300 Mbps fiber.

But Sturgeon's law being what it is, we're probably stuck with a shitty web.
But I wonder if browser makers can do anything to ease the pain a bit. For
example, a page will reflow a few times while it loads, making it hard to
start reading immediately. I'll often be mousing to the thing I want to click
on next only to see everything move. Could browsers coalesce these reflows so
that only completed pages are presented to the user?

~~~
Touche
I don't disagree that the old web was aesthetically nicer, but nothing flew on
14.4 or 28k modems. I remember when 56k came out and everyone was like "WOW!".

~~~
guiscreenshots
OP wasn't talking about 14.4 - 56k. They said: "256 Kbps DSL"

~~~
Touche
Sorry, I missed that somehow. I don't recall DSL being around in 1998 (but I'm
sure my memory is just wrong). I got on the web around 1994 and it felt like
many years before we had DSL or cable internet.

Anyways, I do agree that the 90s web was nicer in many ways. One thing I miss
greatly is that people actually hand-crafted websites back then. Sure, they
used frames and had construction gifs... but they were hand-crafted. If you
searched for "star wars" you got a couple dozen sites that were all different
looking (but had similar content). Today this is virtually unheard of. Go try
to find a star wars fan website that doesn't use Wikia or some other similar
tool.

~~~
nojvek
May be Google can start lowering rank of shitty pages. Oh but those shitty
pages have Google ads so they'll lose revenue and their stock would tank.

Also why would a news website care if you have a shitty experience. Their A/B
tests are saying customers are more likely to click on ads and sign up if they
use the dark patterns.

Their end goal is to make more money. That's what they are optimizing for. If
you don't like it, don't go to the website. That's the only signal they give a
shit about.

------
delegate
Ironically (or not), the article is exactly on the kind of website which it
describes as 'shit'.

But I agree with it. The web is no longer a place to 'share information'. It
is a place where 'content' is 'monetized' \- or whatever the language they use
nowadays.

Back in the day you'd have the web-site text with a little space left for
'banners', now it's vice-versa - the content _is_ advertising and the useful
information is used to lure in 'traffic'.

All the big 'media' sites, Facebook and Google included are actually
_advertising_ companies and this is the result.

Sure, they also produce 'useful' stuff, but that's because they're well-funded
places were smart people go to do their smart things.

I personally wouldn't mind if _all_ the ad-supported content went away
tomorrow. If a web-site tells me to disable my ad-blocker, I just close the
tab.

"But we should somehow support... ". No we shouldn't. There's too much crap
out there, more than enough to consume in several lifetimes - noise, which
disorients and confuses us.

We should do _the opposite_ \- fight the ads, boycott ad-sites (that includes
most 'news' websites, which are useless and toxic time wasters) and support
sites which are valuable - donate, pay for subscriptions, etc.

Even with no funding, valuable content will still be posted by people who are
_passionate_ and have something to say about a subject. All the rest is, as
tfa says - "shit".

------
Neliquat
Jesus woodchopping christ, this is parody right?

Did the author not see where his article would be posted? Is this some Tim and
Eric level artistic dissonance? Or are we still that blind to our own
shortcomings?

Being shown you are wrong is the great liberator. You get new options, and get
to learn something. Lets hope.

~~~
majewsky
I took it as parody. But the huge "Read next" thingie at the bottom that
linked to an actual article made me think again. I'm not sure anymore.

------
joshuatopolsky
The article isn't about aesthetic choices. If you don't like the way The
Outline looks, that's your opinion, but we made it that way ON PURPOSE. The
article is about forced compromises because of bad B2B decisions made a long
time ago about what user value is.

It's useful to be able to separate those things out. You can appreciate the
article and still be mad at our site because it doesn't look like what you
expect.

~~~
throwanem
Wrong.

When you publish an article entitled "the web looks like shit" on a page that
looks like shit, and people quite reasonably call you on that, you want to own
it, because then you look subtle and smart and clever.

Whining about how people are pointing out your page looks like shit just makes
you look whiny. And the page still looks like shit.

~~~
joshuatopolsky
Dude I literally own it. We love the way our site looks. We made it this way
with a lot of thought and care. It's not for everyone, however.

~~~
optymizer
What people are saying is that the web does look like shit, and your website
is part of the problem.

Unfortunately for you, the web _is_ for everyone. It's for everyone on HN,
it's for people with disabilities, it's for people who have a 32" desktop
screen that don't need your shitty hamburger menu and giant font size, it's
for people with color blindness, it's for people who want to read the content,
not marvel at your silly squiggly lines.

Saying that "my design is not for everyone" in such a dismissive manner is
deliberately showing the middle finger to everyone who is outside of your
group and people are calling you out on that.

Your submission is objectively ironic, regardless of what YOU think.

~~~
throwanem
Yeah, but this looks like shit _on purpose_. The article's complaining about
pages that look like shit _by accident_. Totally different, don't you know.

~~~
nojvek
I clicked on the actual site. Took 5 seconds to load and a bunch of things
wiggling on the page. Navigation was like snapchat style with full page ads.
Lots or chrome reducing actual readable area. Contrast for text isn't that
great for readability.

Definitely classifies as "looks like shit" in my book.

~~~
throwanem
Also, just throwing it out here, 6e80b054e26bd9dad7934a0bb10699451e59f833.

------
StavrosK
Oh man, this article is so good. I didn't actually read most of it, but that
ad really had me going. "Is this an actual ad? It says 'advertisement', but is
it part of the content, like an ad found in one of the articles it talks
about? Is it an actual ad? They can't be that clueless. Is it parody? I can't
tell at all."

~~~
19eightyfour
I'll just reply under your comment rather than making a new top level post.

Oh god this article is so true.

------
jasonkostempski
The only reason I read even a few lines of this was to see if the layout was
supposed to ironical. It wasn't. I don't know what was going on with my
scrollbar but they managed to jack it up better than any site I've ever been
to.

~~~
sidegrid
Is ironical a word?

~~~
sjwright
It's a string of letters that convey a meaning, so yes, it's a word. It also
has the blessing of being listed in most dictionaries.

Both forms, _ironic_ and _ironical_ are valid and in casual settings tend to
be used interchangeably. In a more formal sense, one would say _a work that
uses irony can be describe as ironical, whereas the events themselves are
ironic._

------
dhruvmittal
For all that the outline is an insane looking site with 3/4 screen ads, it is
also true that it doesn't do any of the shenanigans (redirection, slowing down
the page to load ads, etc.) that the author calls out in the article.

------
johnchristopher
Ah, yes ! That's the site that do the thing with the scrollbar and the next
article autoloading and url changing on the fly. F* you.

------
leppr
Nothing new in this article, but since we're there, here's how I minimize this
problem:

* On the desktop, clicking on Firefox's readability button has become almost second-nature to me when I end up on news sites (speaking of which, what do you guys on Chrome use?).

* For longer articles, I'll often whip up my Kobo and read the articles synced from Pocket.

* On mobile, I also use Pocket (used to enjoy the readability feature on my old iPhone too).

And finally, most of the annoying popups and other conversion-whoring anti-
user features are neutralized with an extension such as uMatrix, but using it
requires quite a bit of daily maintenance overhead so I don't bother anymore.

------
kasikp
This was, ironically, actually pretty hard to read...

~~~
criswell
Why was it hard to read for you? I'm having no trouble. I'm wondering if a lot
of the CSS is more tailored towards macOS/Chrome? Also, the site being
responsive makes `Command +`ing work beautifully (if the issue is font-size,
but it's 18px which is larger than most sites I come across).

~~~
jedanbik
I read the article on Chrome with uBlock Origin, and enjoyed commentary about
ad blockers and anti-patterns between massive ads for Method dish soap the
same size as the preceding paragraphs.

~~~
RugnirViking
I also read the article on chrome with uBlock Origin and found no such thing?
How strange.

------
lutusp
Someone should create an index of sites that _aren 't_ s * * t. Then we can
watch as the listed sites resist the temptation to sell out, once they
actually have visitors resulting from their special status as non-s * * t.

Google, are you listening? I know it's not in your interest to promote sites
that don't beat you over the head with advertising, but maybe not flogging is
the new flogging.

I would have suggested my own site as a candidate -- no ads, lots of free
software and articles, no pop-ups -- but I decided that was too craven and
self-serving. Find it yourself.

------
0x445442
I can't find the reference but I remember reading an article in Wired circa
2000 during the dotcom boom. It was about a couple of guys who owned a diamond
business in Canada and were lured to Los Angeles to start an online diamond
business, ice.com or something.

The gist of the article was these guys only lasted 12-18 months and went back
to Canada and their original business because they were fed up with the
internet and the online business.

The one detail of the article I remember was a quote from one of the owners...
"The internet is basically a giant direct marketing platform"

How to monetize information and what information should be monetized seem like
very tough things to determine. From a consumers perspective, I hate adds on
websites and employ the various bits of software to block them but I'm not
opposed to paying for information. At the moment I don't pay any online
subscription fees other than video. I've considered paying for wsj.com but the
price point is too high in my opinion.

From a strictly UI perspective I agree with the article's sentiment; most of
the web is a UI fluster cuck.

------
mtw
Funny. Animations on hover links. A big ad "Play Dirty" near the top. A big
"Sign up for newsletter" box that will get me spammed. Then even more huge ads
below to get me to click.

Stop. The web is not broken. It's growing every year. There are lots of sites
that gives you an ad-free experience if you pay. Like in real life, don't
bother going to places that you don't like.

------
Touche
I agree with this article but this happens for a reason; it works. Those full
page ads that you hate? Some % of people actually click on them.

Now, with proper competition this could be fixed. Sites using full-page ads
would lose out to a competitor without them. But since no one can find a way
to monetize a website without making it shit, shit is what we get.

~~~
rhizome
_Those full page ads that you hate? Some % of people actually click on them._

Only because the close button is obscured.

------
mikerice
This is rich coming from theoutline

------
radarsat1
Article looks great in Firefox's Reader View ;)

------
vfaronov
I’m not sure what the author thinks “the web” is. For me, sites like _Mic_ ,
_Teen Vogue_ , _CNN_ constitute a minor part of “the web”. Their being equated
with “the web” seems like a much more serious problem than their visual design
could ever be. In light of that, it’s interesting to note how the article
frames the problem:

> _Stopping the publication of bad articles is probably too much to ask, but
> must so many websites look awful?_

------
devmunchies
The site looks like a designer "concept" site. Kind of like concept cars or
high-end fashion. But the difference is that those concept cars are never
really created because its impractical.

The site was definitely done by a good designer who knows what good design is,
but its a tad over-the-top for everyday use. It looks good though.

------
OutsmartDan
Best part is the hamburger menu on desktop. Real cool

------
nottorp
The site linked to looks like shit. Don't know about the whole web.

------
anorborg
Seriously? Pot meet kettle?

------
dfar1
Was there just a massive ad with rollovers on an article complaining about
massive ads?

------
bassman9000
> Using the internet shouldn’t be this hard.

Pg Up/Down don't work (unless you select some text).

ok

------
mcguire
Is this an example?

------
jefffih
yall so mad lol

------
sunnyP
hmmm. I find LINGsCARS easier to read than the site linked.

