
The Berkshire Hathaway Site is a master class in human-centered design - loumal
https://builtin.com/design-ux/berkshire-hathaway-human-centered-design
======
whoisjuan
Oh yeah. User-agent stylesheets and a list of links. The pinnacle of human-
centered design. /s The author either doesn't understand design or has a very
low-bar for tactically good user-centered experiences, or both.

I can list an endless list of bad things on this website:

\- Bad information architecture.

\- Poor contextualization, narrative, and direction of a message (just because
it's Berkshire Hathaway, doesn't mean that I automatically know what I'm
trying to find in their website)

\- Poor document structure that renders at the whole width of wide screens and
doesn't wrap for small screens.

\- Bad typography and typographic scale (can a visually impaired person read
the small text that shows dates and footnotes?)

\- Bad use of color. Everything is blue, the links are purple. Usually in
plain stylesheets blue is reserved for links and purple for clicked links.

\- External links don't open in a new tab.

\- No branding. Can a user trust that this is an official website?

\- No navigational elements (navbar, breadcrumbs, etc) that allow a user to
return to the main page (which is supposed to be the "master class of human-
centered design). Every click is a dead-end.

\- Multiple SEO and accessibility issues:

    
    
      - Does not have a <meta name="viewport"> tag with width or  
      initial-scaleNo `<meta name="viewport">` tag found. Document 
      does not have a meta description
    
      - Text is illegible because there's no viewport meta tag 
     optimized for mobile screens.
    
      - Tap targets are too small because there's no viewport meta 
      tag optimized for mobile screens
    
      - The page does not contain a heading, skip link, or 
      landmark region

~~~
ogre_codes
> External links don't open in a new tab.

> No navigational elements (navbar, breadcrumbs, etc) that allow a user to
> return to the main page (which is supposed to be the "master class of human-
> centered design). Every click is a dead-end.

This is the web, it works like people expect web pages to work. No custom
behaviors, links work like links, the back button does what the back button
should. That is absolutely human friendly. If external links were supposed to
open on a new page then the browsers would default to that.

> Multiple SEO and accessibility issues

Whether a site has SEO issues is irrelevant to usability of the site. It's not
like they are looking for organic traffic. If I'm looking for BRK's homepage,
it's easy enough to find which is all that matters from a SEO perspective for
a site like this.

The accessibility issues are a concern if they actually existed. This kind of
site is ideal for screen readers and while it doesn't automatically adjust for
mobile, it doesn't get in the way of zoom or reader view which makes the site
just fine for people who struggle with small fonts.

> The page does not contain a heading, skip link, or landmark region

You don't seem to understand why the skip links are there. In this case, there
is no heading full of links you need to skip over, if you open the page and
start tabbing, you are _already on the first bit of content_. It is better
from a usability perspective than a skip link.

~~~
waheoo
You shouldnt conflate browser defaults with good usability.

Sure its generally speaking a good rule of thumb to follow but saying the
default is the right thing to do because its a default is a logical fallacy.
Its appealing to authority for no actual reason.

Why is the default the default? Is it because of user studies or is it because
a developer said thats the easiest thing to implement in the time i have
available.

~~~
ogre_codes
> You shouldnt conflate browser defaults with good usability.

It's a fair point, but rather vague. Perhaps if you gave an example of where
you disagree it might be more useful a criticism.

BRK's page is not ideal by any means and I don't think my post or the original
article suggested as much.

------
mercwear
I believe that "Master class" is taking it a bit too far. The site has
remained the same because there is no reason to update it. If the simplistic
design was revolutionary or represented something other than "Don't fix what
is not broken" they would be using the same format for their portfolio
companies.

The site gets the info out to the people that need it, nothing more nothing
less. It's a good design for what they are trying to do however it's a
terrible design for many other companies.

~~~
SilasX
I agree Master Class is too much[1], but it's still better than most sites I
deal with today: the information is easy to find, doesn't overload your
browser, and plays nice with extensions. Plus, it's usable on mobile. Not
_optimized_ , sure, but at least it doesn't break my ability to use it on
mobile: I can just zoom in as necessary.

But that's more of an indictment of out-of-control web design that's all too
common.

[1] I think the author could plausibly mean "class" in the sense of "lesson",
since he contrasts it with the other, newer site design and uses them to
illustrate the difference purposes, but a) that's a bit of a stretch, and b)
he never frames it as a lesson or uses the word "class" for the rest of the
article.

~~~
mercwear
+1 - most sites are bad and a lot of them do not introduce WHAT the product
they are pitching does until below the fold.

------
dceddia
It seems this article is idolizing the ugliness of the site as being some some
kind of contrarian user-centered design. User-centered doesn't have to mean
_ugly_ , though. There's a whole lot of middle ground between "default-styled
page from 1995" and "2020 SaaS landing page with flashy illustrations that
doesn't explain what it does".

You might remember
[http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/](http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/) vs.
[http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/](http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/)
from a few years back. Some minimal tweaks to typography/colors/spacing can
make a big difference.

~~~
whoisjuan
Not only that. Aesthetics are a function of design. They allow us to
understand a message, follow a narrative and more deeply empathize with
objects to the point that we may be forgiving of small issues. They are part
of how we behave and interact with many things that surround us and influence
us. They help us to create mental models for the world because they become an
attribute of the objects we desire or loathe.

Of course, utilitarian and plain boring design aesthetics have a place in the
world, but imagine if everything was like this website. It would be almost
impossible to generate opinions because we don't have any distinct reference
to help us imagine if something could be more harmonic and visually appealing.

I believe that the goal of aesthetics is precisely to empower people to
generate feelings toward objects that otherwise wouldn't generate a
connection. It's the same reason why we can appreciate art or admire nature.
Because those things are full of visual attributes that help us to elicit
thoughts and re-describe things as we see them (ugly, funny, colorful, boring,
etc).

------
mattl
> On first impression, Option B looks straight out of the 80s. The text is
> off, the font is off, the URLs look outdated

What web browser was this guy using in the 80s?

~~~
fabianmg
[https://literarydevices.net/hyperbole/](https://literarydevices.net/hyperbole/)

~~~
SilasX
Hyperbole is when you use _obvious_ , _extreme_ exaggerations. Going one unit
past "completely plausible" is a confused, weak use of the technique.

For example, I wouldn't call it hyperbole (or effective writing) if you
referred to an interest rate of 45% as 55% "to emphasize how big it is".

~~~
mywittyname
Agreed. It's kind of distracting because, when you read it, you start
thinking, "is that right?" My immediate thought was to go look up with Mosaic
came out and determine if there were graphical browsers before that, which, I
think, is not what the author intended.

~~~
SilasX
I have that problem generally, where I will automatically think of plausible
interpretations of what someone is saying (like, here, imagining that early
graphical browsers e.g. for minitel looked like this), and thus often can't
tell if someone is joking.

------
flyinglizard
The Berkshire Hathaway sure can look like that _precisely because_ it’s the
website of Berkshire Hathaway, an established and trusted holding company -
pretty much the hallmark of blue chip investment.

Furthermore, Berkshire does not try to entice visitors or market any services
through its website. Its only purpose is shareholder communication, and for
that, this website is one step removed from sending those by fax.

~~~
JadeNB
> The Berkshire Hathaway sure can look like that precisely because it’s the
> website of Berkshire Hathaway, an established and trusted holding company -
> pretty much the hallmark of blue chip investment.

> Furthermore, Berkshire does not try to entice visitors or market any
> services through its website. Its only purpose is shareholder communication,
> and for that, this website is one step removed from sending those by fax.

That's exactly what the post says:

> The official website is built for the shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway.
> It’s not built to convert customers. It’s not built for you or me.
> Shareholders are really only concerned with very specific things: news
> releases, reports and letters from Warren Buffett to name a few.

~~~
perl4ever
I'm not sure that theory makes sense. If you want SEC filings, you can get
them at sec.gov, which is also kind of retro.

~~~
JadeNB
I'm not advancing any theory, only pointing out that what flyinglizard said
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22867783](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22867783))
is what the article said.

------
nabla9
The quality of the site is not coming from the quality of web design (it's not
that good).

It's the purity of the function that leads to good design. The function is to
provide information for stock owners and potential investors, many of them are
old people. The site is not trying to sell, influence or impress. Berkshire is
selling nothing to consumers or visitors. Their subsidiaries that sell have
their own websites.

Berkshire HQ has just 25 staffers. Their subsidiaries employ close to 400,000
people.

------
dna_polymerase
Option B serves the user with relevant information too fast. That might be
nice for the user, but for SEO, it is horrible, since Google incentives
building websites that suck users in and never let them go (by incorporating
time spent on the page into their ranking).

------
JackFr
> Option B looks straight out of the eighties

From Wikipedia:

"[Tim Berners-Lee] wrote the first web browser in 1990 while employed at CERN
near Geneva, Switzerland. The browser was released outside CERN in 1991, first
to other research institutions starting in January 1991 and then to the
general public in August 1991."

I guess the eighties have become a frame of mind rather than a period in time.

~~~
perl4ever
I think sometimes primitive graphics are equated with Prodigy, which was
around in the 80s, I think.

------
blawson
Always loved Benchmark Capital's website design:
[http://www.benchmark.com](http://www.benchmark.com)

It's great to be able to say "we are so good all we need is an unsecured
landing page from the 90s."

------
ajay-d
Renaissance Technologies - one of the "most secretive and successful" hedge
funds in the world has a pretty bare bones site too
[https://www.rentec.com/](https://www.rentec.com/)

~~~
vikramkr
Because they dont need anything else on their website, because the people that
invest in their fund dont find them through a website. You dont get to decide
to invest in funds like those, they get to pick whose money they accept, they
dont even necessarily need a website

------
deusxm86
"Master Class" in HCI? This is a farce. View this on any mobile device and you
realize that it breaks all rules of HCI.

~~~
DanTheManPR
The poor mobile support is pretty unforgivable. I do really like old-fashioned
websites such as Craigslist or very straightforward blogs such as Paul
Graham's. But this particular example does have a lot of usability problems.

------
oxalorg
Whenever I come across a website which looks like its from the 90s I click a
button [0] in my bookmarks bar to prettify it.

[0]
[https://oxal.org/projects/sakura/bookmark](https://oxal.org/projects/sakura/bookmark)

------
kolanos
You'd think that site would be accessible. And while it's not terrible, all
the unordered lists with a single list item in them is crazy annoying if
you're using a screen reader.

------
smilebot
In my opinion, this article seems to be biased with Halo effect.

------
aerodog
Error 1020 Ray ID: 583eb7e1fa8bda42 • 2020-04-14 16:14:10 UTC Access denied
What happened? This website is using a security service to protect itself from
online attacks.

------
darepublic
Echoing what others in these comments have said, simple and direct is good but
to call this site a masterclass in design is really going overboard

------
ghego1
I don't understand why so many upvotes. While the underlying concept of the
article is correct, and the author deserves credit for that, the argument made
to support it can be true only if the reader accepts the premise of the
article itself (option B is made having the user at the center), which the
author openly admits he/she has no clue if that is the case.

------
mmcgaha
What caused so many people to start using "master class" in this way?

Usage appears to be on the rise too:
[https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%...](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%22master%20class%22)

~~~
buffin
It's a new elearning platform with a good advertising budget.
[https://www.masterclass.com/](https://www.masterclass.com/) That must explain
the google trend.

------
ksec
> _Access denied

>What happened?

>This website is using a security service to protect itself from online
attacks._

So being HNed is now considered as DDoS? Last time I checked an article on HN
Front page got me about 30K in a day, even if that happened to be all within
the one minute, how could that be classified as DDoS?

------
jasonv
The colors are painful (to my eyes) and non-standard. I disagree with the
article.

------
JoshTko
One more aspect of why this design is appropriate is consistency. The 1998
version found in the wayback machine is basically the same design. Given the
product the consistency is especially appreciated.

------
deusxm86
BH forgot about the introduction of mobile devices in the last 10+ years.

------
chrisked
Applaud Simons for another master piece with RenTec
[https://www.rentec.com/](https://www.rentec.com/)

------
mrxd
You have to pick colors and typefaces, why not pick good ones? There are
probably millions of choices that are both beautiful and functional.

The author seems to believe that there's an essential zero-sum relationship
between form and functionality, i.e. by removing "bells and whistles", you've
somehow improved the finding of information. That doesn't make sense to me.

------
kreetx
And now the said site is trying to cope with the traffic.. They should use a
cdn.

------
efa
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="Adobe PageMill 2.0 Win">

Awesome!

------
tonytubes23
The business is owned by quite literally the tightest man on the planet.
(tight as in frugal)

It's not good design. It's a legacy system.

It still 'does the job', so upgrading it is probably seen as an unnecessary
expense.

------
maxk42
TLDR: Don't use CSS.

------
vearwhershuh
The practical lesson here is, as always: be extremely wealthy.

No matter what you do, people will think it is profoundly smart.

~~~
ajhurliman
Counter point: Craigslist also has very simplistic, human-centered design that
they get praised for and they are not rich at all.

~~~
snowwrestler
Craiglist absolutely gets praised because they have been so successful with
that design. There are plenty of websites that looked like Craigslist but were
not as successful, and you won't see them in thought leadership blog posts in
2020.

Also, Craiglist has evolved their site quite a bit and at this point their
"design" is no longer a matter of simplicity, but essentially a visual
aesthetic that they maintain as a matter of branding and culture, kind of like
Amazon giving people door-desks long after it became cheaper for them to just
buy regular office furniture in bulk.

~~~
Cthulhu_
Plus, Craigslist couldn't just change their design to something "modern", it'd
put people off - people don't like change. Or, people don't like sudden
change.

It reminds me of a national adverts website over here, Marktplaats; it used to
be a very 90's, table-driven lists of links kind of deal with a fugly brown
background. But it took off nevertheless, and became a major business that was
eventually taken over by Ebay (in 2004). It's very slowly changed its front-
end to a more modern facing one. But they made sure to do it slowly. Evolution
rather than revolution.

