And the floating "CLICK ME" button which "CLICK ME" kept following "CLICK ME" down the page.
The more you add to a web page, the more it obscures the fundamental interaction you want people to use. It's harder to make an interactive page than a static one, so I'm not really blaming the OP. The real lesson is, "focus on the interactions which count". Google has a lot of cruft on their front page, but the only thing really distracting you from the search form is their logo.
I made it to the end, but with difficulty and for the same reason.
As for the ideas, that's great but I remember writing in a similar flush of enthusiasm 20 years ago. Much as I like YouTube, it's not the same as going to the opera. And part of what makes a good library valuable is what it excludes as well what it includes. Right now the WWW is too much like a shopping mall. I'm more interested in the internet of things.
I have issues with my sight too. And as such, I've just fixed the font, font-size, foreground and background colours in my browser, and I'm much happier for it.
Backlit screens can still play havoc on my eyes, so for longer content, I just send it over to my eReader, to read later.
I prefer light on dark text - when I'm in a dark environment, and dark on light when I'm in a bright room. It also depends on the monitor. But each to their own.
The nice thing about taking the design into your own hands - is that you can bypass most of the author's styles - and then you can quit moaning. An author can't cater for all tastes.
Each browser has different ways to customise them, and it can be a bit of a fiddle, and sometimes you might end up breaking out into another browser to read something - but it _can_ be done.
Hacker news looks horrible to me without my styles applied. I strongly recommend taking control of your browser.
I agree with you that the web is not only about words, but I don't think that was necessarily what Justin's post was trying to say. He said words are a powerful tool on the web, that global communication is magical, and that it doesn't need to be overly complicated to share ideas with others. He said "start with with words" not "only ever use words and nothing else".
I think he was indeed placing a greater weight on the value of words over other tools, but I don't think that's necessarily incorrect. Certainly the web is about more than just words: it's about connecting human ideas together. Those connections can take form through a vast array of media. But I agree with Justin that at its core, the web is more about words than it is about videos or images or WebGL (as it is today). If you took the words out of the internet I think I would be missing some of the most important parts. If I didn't have access to youtube or flickr (videos or images) I think I'd still have access to a lot of the value I find in the internet.
I felt that Justin was making the point the web is about words which I strongly disagree with. The words are a means, an important one and arguably the most important one, to an end.
Words are not what the web is about in the same way paint isn't what art is about.
Yeah I agree. I don't think that's what he was saying though.
I think he was pretty clear that the words are a tool (i.e., a means to an end). I think he said webdesign should be about words (i.e., don't get wrapped up in frilly widgets and shinny buttons over the content of your communications), not that the web itself is about words.
In the end 'content' is what matters, and even though the oop (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5913381) phrased it as 'words' if you replace it with 'content' he has a point. IMHO in essence he was trying to say design should start with content, not with shiny buttons, orange icons (remember web 2.0 anyone?) or flat ui. And I agree with him.
