
Are Current Web Design Trends Pushing Us Back to 1999? (2011) - DanBC
http://sixrevisions.com/web_design/are-current-web-design-trends-pushing-us-back-to-1999/
======
rayiner
I'll out myself as a luddite: I hate the modern web. I hate nearly everything
about it other than the fat high-speed link I use to connect to it. I hate the
animation, the video, the ever more insidious and unblock-able pop-ups. I hate
that technical posts that used to be just some text I could quickly skim are
now often videos I have to watch (I'm looking at you MSDN Channel 9!). I
absolutely hate video. It's a terrible medium for communicating information to
a person who is trying to multitask. It should be strictly reserved for porn
and other entertainment. I hate Flash. I hate how Flash ads sit there and suck
up my battery life. I hate Javascript that does the same. If I've just got my
browser open to a page and I'm working in Emacs, Safari should be sitting at
0.0 (maybe 0.1)% CPU usage, not waking up my CPU constantly to do whatever
shit it thinks it needs to do.

Text is great. Civilization pretty much peaked when we figured out how to
blast text from the other side of the planet to your screen in 150-200
milliseconds. It's been downhill from there.

~~~
scarmig
You just want to read text? How pedestrian. Don't you want to visit a blog
post, stare at a blank screen for a couple seconds while a couple dozen HTTP
requests are shot off for the JS, and then grabbed using an XHR? Or even
better, a WebSocket? It's a modern convenience few people would want to give
up!

~~~
AJ007
What I want to do is watch auto-play video ads, because reading is too hard.

~~~
hexagonc
auto-play video ads should be disabled at the OS level

~~~
coldpie
Grab adblock and flashblock. And noscript if you're feeling hardcore. The web
gets way better.

~~~
lazugod
Nothing stops HTML5 video from autoplaying, sadly.

~~~
codygman
Look above you friend.

------
yareally
One thing not mentioned was the excessive use of fixed elements that would
have probably been rendered as frames back in 1999. They're not exactly the
same, but most of the usage for fixed elements is replicating what a designer
or developer would have used frames for, such as affixing a menu to stick to a
certain area of the page no matter where the user scrolls.

Edit: Also modal popup windows everywhere, even where they aren't really
needed (Twitter and the Chrome Extension Web Store are 2 that are
questionable) instead of those js popup windows we used to see as browsers
tend to block those. Maybe it's just me, but when you get to the point of
having to put an entire page's content into a modal window, maybe it should be
a separate page.

~~~
bru
Good point on the modal popup windows! That could be a whole part of the
article.

alert() was, after all, a standard way to notify the user about something
(overused, yes). Then we switched to pop-in alerts. Accessibility-wise, I
think it is a big loss. The appearance is no more standard, focus management
and navigability suck, its semantics are lost, and you cannot block it any
more ("prevent this page from opening more pop-ups").

Most of the time the content of a pop-in will be as irrelevant as the past
pop-up's, but with full HTML available: welcome colours, pictures and videos!

------
kps
The main difference is that in 1999 you could run lynx and see nothing but
pure plain text. Today, browsers no longer fetch text — they fetch scripts
that fetch scripts that fetch text.

DAMN KIDS, GET OFF MY LAWN.

~~~
talmand
New idea. Fetch script that emulates lynx in page, fetch script that fetches
text to display as plain text.

Plugin maybe?

------
radicalbyte
Have you used the internet without an adblocker? It's a horrible horrible
place :(

Ghostery
([https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ghostery/mlomiejdf...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ghostery/mlomiejdfkolichcflejclcbmpeaniij))
fixes most of the speed problems.

~~~
acdha
All the time and the experience is radically unlike what you describe because
I simply don't visit ad-bloated sites. Those practices tell you they're just
trolling for page-views – don't reward that lack of respect and you're fine.

------
spindritf
I agree with the larger point, especially the bloat. However...

> Do we want to follow someone on Twitter just because they have 30,000
> followers?

Yes. Social proof is not going away because it's part of human nature, not a
technological gimmick.

> Modern-Day "Best Viewed With" Badges

It's also hard to blame designers for disliking IE, or pointing out that
various experimental demo sites will work best with certain browsers, or may
be a bit heavy on resources.

~~~
6d0debc071
> Yes. Social proof is not going away because it's part of human nature, not a
> technological gimmick.

Technological gimmicks might be expected to tune better though. If the only
people I've followed on twitter so far are artists and programmers, it seems
to me that it would be a reasonable bet that I'm not going to be interested in
superstars. It's odd that people would be expected to click through to follow
just based on # of followers.

~~~
mbesto
_It's odd that people would be expected to click through to follow just based
on # of followers._

Why is this so odd? This is a fundamental aspect of human behavior. The # of
twitter followers is in indication (not perfectly I might add) of the
viability of credibility. This is no different than case stories, customer
references, etc. which are all the cornerstones of successfully marketing
entities.

~~~
6d0debc071
Without knowing how many people saw and didn't follow, or followed and then
stopped following - without the information that pushes the hypothesis back in
the other direction - numbers alone are... well, they're not entirely
meaningless - you can take some guesses - but they're not particularly useful.

Like - If a superstar can get 30k people to follow them, it means less than
some random artist getting all the 30k people who know about them to follow
them. Because in the latter case you can guess that the weight pushing the
hypothesis in the other direction's going to be quite small.

In semantic terms what you're really relying on in the former case to reduce
the seize of the contrary hypothesis is the assumption that society is more or
less uniform with respect to its interests along the relevant axis - which I
find highly questionable.

Then think of where these stickers are going to turn up -you'd expect people
to have better first hand evidence available.

So, I find it a bit odd. I'd have assumed it'd get discounted into irrelevance
and people would just make up their own minds based on their knowledge of the
person.

~~~
mbesto
_I'd have assumed it'd get discounted into irrelevance and people would just
make up their own minds based on their knowledge of the person._

You give the human brain way too much credit.

------
kingsidharth
Add flat UI to the list. The only thing that's saving it is better typography
and better sense of spacing (since designers are more involved now).

It's a step back in terms of usability as well. In flat UI, clickable and
unclickable often look the same and several other problems.

~~~
pkorzeniewski
What I find funny is that now, when we finally have a proper CSS support for
gradients, shadows, rounded edges and so on, we're going into design style
that could be easily achieved in the '90s :)

~~~
steven777400
Although not a designer, I have a suspicion that the ability is precisely the
driver of flat design. When gradients, shadows, rounded edges, etc, were HARD,
then using them showed a degree of effort and technical capability.

In other words, gradients, shadows, rounded edges, etc were a form of
credential.

Now that they're easy, they've lost that credentialing effect and (over)using
them is akin to a 90's myspace page with an abundance of glitter and flashy
clipart.

I personally would like to see a middle ground with tasteful use of gradients
and shadows as opposed to the flat design. But then, there's a reason I'm NOT
a designer (for example, I like skeuomorphic design, I think it's fun and
playful)

------
hawkharris
I enjoyed this article and thought it was very insightful. To me the only
point that lacked merit was the one about telling users to use a specific
browser; the motivation for that practice was very different in the early 90s
than it is today.

In the 90s I think it was common for sites to demand that users switch to a
certain browser because they wanted to avoid compatibility issues related to
CSS and JavaScript. It wasn't (at least according to my observation) usually
about providing the user with a strikingly new experience.

By contrast, most modern sites that require a certain browser do so because
they're flirting with an interesting technology that offers the user something
new. For example the example the author cites was a demonstration, funded by
Google, to promote a use of WebGL technology that allowed users to explore
sprawling real 3D environments in their browsers.

Of course, restricting a user's choice of browser is never desirable and it
limits your audience. Just saying I think the motivation for doing so and the
payoffs we experience today aren't comparable to those of the 90s.

~~~
tg3
I think in the 90's the motivation was the same. Sure for some folks it was
just about being lazy and only supporting one browser, but I think for a lot
of people it was taking advantage of CSS and Javascript only available in one
browser.

In those days a lot of the functionality that we take for granted as cross-
browser was only available on the bleeding edge of one or another browser. I
think for a mainstream audience, those badges were more appropriate then than
they are now.

------
bornhuetter
One big difference is that almost every new site seems to have a Macbook Air
featured prominently in the middle of the homepage (at least for webapps
anyway).

------
jacques_chester
I was ready to dismiss it as a cheap headline, but I think he's on to
something.

That said: sometimes a thing is terrible in its first incarnation, but a later
incarnation works well.

Incidentally: (2011)

~~~
DanBC
Whoops, sorry. I've edited that in.

------
emil0r
The one thing I think he missed was the use of a ton of javascript snippets
from different services used to "enhance" the site. Several seconds are
normally added to loading the page.

------
mixedbit
One more: in the old days you often needed to run a java applet to get full
functionality, today you often need to download a mobile app.

------
talmand
Sigh.

Hit Counters: These served very little purpose. The social counters serve the
purpose of encouraging the viewer to engage. Also, if a client makes a request
and you refuse due to personal preference to the point of losing the client,
that's not very professional.

Splash Page: So, CSS3 tech demos have replaced Flash intros? Where? I have
failed to see any HTML5, CSS3, canvas, or whatever other new technologies have
replaced the annoying Flash intros. The closest I've seen is creative gizmos
in headers and footers that don't prevent me from doing what I'm there to do.

Best Viewed Badges: These originally served a purpose in that it was certainly
possible that a website would not render correctly in one browser versus
another during the browser wars. The modern equivalent of that is an effort to
prevent that situation from happening again. Also, pointing to a technology
showcase isn't exactly proof of the theory.

Although, I agree with the validation deal. In this day it's rather difficult
to have a website that validates with all the third party people doing what
they want in the space, I'm looking at you Microsoft. And others.

Cut and Paste Scripts: This one confused me, it seems there is praise and
complaint at the same time. "Cleaner and easier to read than before." Too many
HTTP requests but too much code not in an external file? Well, which is it
then? Personally, I fail to see this as a big deal unless you are seriously
abusing the head section of the document.

Marquees: The only difference between them, once you look at it, is design.
Plus there is a bit of function difference there as well. As in modern
equivalents often serve a purpose while the marquee element had little purpose
because it was so limiting.

But I'll end the same way but expand on it, in no way are things as bad today
as before. I made websites back then, things are much better today on a level
that simply cannot be expressed.

~~~
smrtinsert
Just because you said the opposite doesn't make it true. Both hit counters and
social counters track user interaction. These days with auto follow bots you
are probably more at risk for an inflated number.

The best viewed badge is also just people not wanting to build or test in IE.
That sucks that people have to do their jobs. The equivalent in programming
would be someone that doesn't want to recognize memory or processor limits.
You work within constraints, so man up people.

~~~
talmand
You're right, but I was just stating my opinions on the writer's opinions.
Just because he said something that I think the opposite of doesn't make him
correct either.

But I seriously disagree with you on hit counters since they could be set by
the website's owner to whatever arbitrary number desired, the counter
essentially meant nothing. A social counter is easily verified, assuming you
trust the third party social network doing the counting.

Encouraging people to upgrade to a better browser is a sign of laziness on the
part of the developer? Sure you work within constraints, but sometimes when it
comes to browsers your market demands features you can't deliver on the
browser of their choice. Therefore, you suggest a better browser. Granted,
some people are lazy so there is something to what you say, such as people who
refuse to use any CSS prefixes other than -webkit.

------
smrtinsert
The lack of idempotent navigation pisses me off. I should be able to find what
happened on my Facebook wall by date, not by "scroll until you get there".

------
VLM
The essay makes valid points.

However the essay design is awkward because it starts by comparing the music
industry where about five rich old white male record company execs decide what
everyone will be stuck listening to, with the much more democratic / organic /
diverse process of web development styles and trends. Dropping the whole music
industry analogy from the essay would have made it stronger.

Still a good essay, just saying an essay about style and good taste misses the
mark if it doesn't optimize those traits in itself. Like a rant about
misspelled words containing misspelled words or something.

------
hna0002
Valid points, but instead of complaining, we need to understand why these
trends are coming back? For. e.g. back in a days hit counter were a sign of
credibility and popularity, popups are to grab user's attention (there is no
excuse to auto play video!) same way twitter followers are displayed to show
how popular the user is, popups and modal screens are used to say this is a
different context (per say). Even though they are misused just for the sake of
a developer doing 'cool stuff'. We should figure out is there more creative
way to address these ?

------
samikc
The web design needs a re-thinking from all points mentioned in OP. +1 for the
counter, these are not only worthless information but also sometimes takes so
much time to load the web sites.

------
mindcrime
_The glam trend died and true rock music was starting to be revived._

ROFL at "the glam trend died". Tell that to Motley Crue, Def Leppard, Poison,
Dokken, Slaughter, Cinderella and plenty of other 80's era glam-metal bands
who have continued to experience success into the 2000's and 2010's, and the
whole new generation of glam/sleaze bands which emerged (mostly) from Sweden:
Hardcore Superstar, Vains of Jenna, Crashdiet, Babylon Bombs, Gemini Five,
etc.

Glam metal will never die!

And as for the idea that grunge somehow represented "real rock"... LOL. Grunge
was a completely manufactured phenomenon and should probably go down in
history as the most artificial "movement" ever. There's a reason the grunge
bands blew into town, had their 5 or 6 years in the limelight and then mostly
faded away. I mean, sure, STP or Pearl Jam still have their fans (what band
doesn't?) but nobody really gives two shits about grunge anymore.

Anyway, to keep this vaguely on-topic, I'd say this... "modern" web-design
_does_ include elements which have been re-purposed, borrowed, slightly-
modified, and cribbed from "old" web-design. Just like "post grunge" bands
borrow elements from "traditional" grunge (downtuned guitars, etc.) along with
elements from old-school glam-metal: the occasional guitar solo, a more
melodic sound, more optimistic vocals, etc.

It's the nature of things... everything goes in cycles, and "things" keep re-
appearing over and over again, packaged slightly differently, or with a
different polish or veneer applied, and maybe with a different name. This
isn't necessarily _bad_ per-se, it's just part of the way things evolve.

~~~
binxbolling
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the article was about music
history.

~~~
mindcrime
What can I say? Other than software, metal (and glam metal in particular) is
one of the things I'm most passionate about. If I had a shred of musical
talent, I'd probably get out of the software business and join a glam-metal
band.

Sadly, I am pretty much tone-deaf and couldn't carry a tune with a wheel-
barrow.

~~~
resu_nimda
Well that would explain your clear bias. This sentence applies equally to your
list of glam metal bands: "I mean, sure, STP or Pearl Jam still have their
fans (what band doesn't?) but nobody really gives two shits about grunge
anymore."

The claim that Motley Crue and Def Leppard are still relevant in modern music
culture is pretty silly.

~~~
mindcrime
You may well be right! This is one subject on which I won't even pretend to
_not_ be biased. But, being as this is HN and not "music fan news", I won't
say anything more on the topic. I wouldn't have said anything about it, but I
was in a playful mood this morning and felt like having a little fun. :-)

------
restlessmedia
Look at fashion, things always seem to come back around again.

------
alanh
Notice how all his "similarities" (minus twitter follower counts!) pit common
and painful pratices from 1999 with _demos_ from the modern day. Seriously.
Demos! Which means that, no, we have not actually regressed into 1999.

Elegant trolling, though, I guess, if we are allowed to say that on HN.

------
teeja
I use ad-blocking, tracker-blocking and cookie-blocking. Some sites won't even
let you see whether their flash is worth viewing without turning those all
off. (I'm looking at you, BusinessInsider.)

I have a tool for them too, called "Block Site". Once they "pass the test" ...
gimickry over content ... I blacklist them (fool me once, shame on you...),
and any links to those sites are removed from all pages.

Design gravitates toward what the masses respond to. Obviously, from that
standpoint, Facebook is "well-designed". For the more discerning, there are
bookmarks for sites worth revisiting.

------
Leszek
A lot of good points there, and a notable exception to Betteridge's law.

------
btilly
How ironic. I read this as I'm being annoyed by gmail accidentally breaking
chat (it no longer can remember that I read a chat AND KEEPS FLASHING TO DRAW
MY ATTENTION TO ITS STUPIDITY), and plus.google.com has a layout redesign that
I simply loathe.

Designers will always want control, but they seem to use that control to do
things that I do not like.

------
jimmaswell
what's wrong with hitcounters? I still like them.

~~~
stefantalpalaru
The page views from users and bots for a poorly specified interval has very
little meaning. Much like the social network "followers" badges we have today.

------
websitescenes
I read the whole article. So the answer to the title question is no? Kinda
confused on what the ultimate point is. Stay simple and clean no matter what
toys you're using?

------
porker
Title on HN could do with (2011) appending.

~~~
DanBC
Yes, sorry, I edited that in now!

------
RedneckBob
<BLINK>

