Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I barely see the problem. Sure, the header and footer aren't perfect, but stupidly large? I also don't feel any "cpu melting javascripts" and my PC is barely usable when I compile anything.

For me, Medium provides a very readable experience that is much better than the average static blog. And I don't have to fear a malware ridden page like an old Wordpress installation.

This is how the article looks like on 1280x800: https://i.imgur.com/L07L4ce.png

Sticky header/footer, cookie consent covering the menu, not a single line of the content visible. You consider this design good?

I might be wrong with this specific site on the JS - it only loaded 121KB Javascript. The actual HTML of the entry is 30.

WordPress nowadays upgrades itself to minor version - security patches - without touching it, and they release security patches for ancient versions as well. I'm aware there are unpatched sites out there, but they are either ancient - 5+ years - and untouched since, or deliberately crippled.

Average static blog has a very decent default theme.

But hey, different people, different opinions.

It looks even worse on mobile https://i.imgur.com/EOm3D4Y.png

I also don't think the JS is that bad here, the site loaded pretty fast for me even when I tested with a slow 3G network. But yeah that UI doesn't give a good reading experience.

Having the blog post outside Medium doesn't guarantee them all looking better. On the other side, it is easier to fix one site using custom CSS than it is to fix a bunch.

An on the other other side Firefox's reading mode makes this whole discussion irrelevant.

> An on the other other side Firefox's reading mode makes this whole discussion irrelevant.

It really doesn't. It doesn't fix it for non-firefox and non-power users.

I was starting to think I was the only one with this opinion.

The "Shitty design is fine because I personally know a way to get around it" school of thought never made sense to me.

Chrome is the only mainstream browser without a decent reading mode these days — because doesn’t want people hiding advertisements. One of the reasons I prefer not to use it.

And enabling reader mode doesn’t need any power user skills, does it?

> Chrome is the only mainstream browser

It "only" has 70%+ of the browser market share, and growing.

Safari also has a reading mode. I would be shocked if Chrome and Edge didn't as well.

Edge does, Chrome doesn't.

Funnily enough, Chrome has a reader mode on Android but not in the desktop version. At the same time Chrome Desktop has add-ons, Chrome Android doesn't.

You can get high mileage from a fairly small set of stylesheets, though yes, you do have a point.


1280x800 means you can have ad blocker at least (or tampermonkey). Block bottom bar and make header scrollable for this site once. Phones lack this, sadly.

Why should people be expected to install an ad blocker and add a load of custom rules just to make a specific website usable? In what world is that reasonable?

IRL you can choose worlds only by denying possibilities, afaict. In a world where adblock is not an option you have to make a big change or tolerate.

Firefox on Android can install uBlock.

And uBlock Origin and Privacy Badger.

I just block Javascript for Medium on my phone, which helps (though there's still an obnoxiously large top bar). The availability of a workaround doesn't excuse Medium's poor design, though.

Regarding the size of the header, in Safari on an iPhone 6, in landscape mode, the header is taking 25% of the screen real estate, and "open in app" is hovering over the text at the bottom.

On the other hand, reader view, which removes all that, works well on the page.

> I barely see the problem.

I barely see anything at all. I managed to take a peek at the title between two large bars of some other stuff I don't care about.

its a problem whenever I visit my rural family.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact