[HN Gopher] W3C Beta Website ___________________________________________________________________ W3C Beta Website Author : TangerineDream Score : 57 points Date : 2023-02-27 20:39 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (beta.w3.org) (TXT) w3m dump (beta.w3.org) | Waterluvian wrote: | The responsiveness of this website is what I thought things were | going to be like for all of the internet. | synergy20 wrote: | all it has is jquery3 + bootstrap4, still amazing. | VPenkov wrote: | I like it. It's easy to be against change and difficult to get | behind it. | | Maybe in attracting developers who criticize it, some will end up | finding something educational. The homepage could be more useful, | especially around the ways to contribute. But the main categories | are right there in the first sentence of the first section, and | the data structures makes sense. | | Good job! | GordonS wrote: | I agree, it looks good! On mobile in particular, it looks | _refreshingly_ good and feels very functional. | synergy20 wrote: | What is used to build this site? some SSG, or SSR, or SPA, or a | CMS like wordpress? check its html source showed jquery 3.5.1 and | bootstrap 4. | | Also liked this newly updated page: | https://www.raspberrypi.com/documentation/ and it's using | jquery1.x still. | | now I start to wonder all those new SSG|SSR trend along with SPA, | maybe bootstrap + jquery combination is good enough? | tekbog wrote: | sad. | Gualdrapo wrote: | Not sure why previous comments are so harsh towards its design. | | The very header copy says the W3C strives to help people build | web based on several principles, and accessibility is listed | first. And this design resembles that - a strong focus on | accessibility and feeling familiar and usable for most people. I | don't think doing a "less overused" design in there would keep | that goal in focus. | jchw wrote: | Truth be told, there is no reason to believe that what is | popular in web design is particularly good for accessibility or | the sensibilities of people. In fact, I'd argue "Corporate | Memphis" in particular is something that became overused in | spite of the fact that it offended sensibilities for many. | | That said, I think over-applying the "accessibility" viewpoint | to bleed into things that really don't have to do with | accessibility is an anti-pattern. I do not feel like KDE is | less "accessible" due to the artwork and character mascots of | Tyson Tan, even though it may not appeal to everyone's | sensibilities. At the end of the day, I'd argue in favor of | unique and memorable designs that feel like they have some | personality rather than like something a committee carefully | constructed to be as inoffensive as they could imagine. | tannhaeuser wrote: | So that's what W3C, Inc. is onto these days? I thought they were | into standardizing HTML etc., meaning they follow a process to | take HTML review drafts from the whatwg github repo ultimately to | recommendation status these days? At least that's what their HTML | WG charter says they do in Februars, but they didn't, when last | year their review resulted in Steve Faulkner's major edit of the | HTML spec to get rid of novel heading level interpretation and | the so-called "outlining algorithm" - one of the original | innovations that came with Ian Hickson's HTML5. | tiffanyh wrote: | Information density. | | One thing I really dislike over the last 10+ years the web has | brought is a huge reduction in information density. | | W3C old site was great at being dense on content/info. This site | is not. | mhitza wrote: | If the designer is reading this thread. My fellow human, please | swap out the corporate memphis landing page image with something | that's less overused in web design today. | metadaemon wrote: | May be a facet of the page they have no control over and is a | bit besides the point | klabb3 wrote: | For people who don't know, Corporate Memphis (aka Alegria, | Homoglobo) is a style of illustrations that features extrahuman | attributes, such as non proportional bodies and non-existing | skin colors. It has been credited to Facebook, and was | explicitly made to be modular (as in designers are | replaceable). | | Obviously beauty is subjective, but to me this style has strong | connotations of cynical corporations, eerie feelings of | minimalist facelessness, toxic positivity and an anxious | alignment with current political winds, clear enough to | minimize scrutiny but vague enough to be entirely unactionable. | The mood words are growth hacking and user engagement. | tannhaeuser wrote: | Not only that, there's also the Islamic/Hadith ban of depicting | any person, making this a particular bad idea (if the reduction | to role models in a corporate memphis style graphic isn't | dehumanizing enough in itself). | [deleted] | andrewguy9 wrote: | I clicked hoping it was Warcraft 3 beta. | | Blizzard please give us Warcraft 4. | raziel31 wrote: | I liked the hover effect on the navbar buttons. It's simple, but | it gives a kind of cartoonish effect. | jacooper wrote: | Unlike most comments here, I think this is very well made!, its | much better than the original site, easy to read, easy to | understand and invitijg to learn more about W3C, rather than an | old website telling to stay away. | | I think Debian should do the same, its much better now, but its | no fedora website. | azemetre wrote: | Back in the day there use to be a joke website called "every | fucking bootstrap site" [1] where it would lambast the popular | design zeitgeist of the time. | | I really wish websites would opt for more distinctive looks | rather than the massive homogenization we see across the web. | Everything looks the same when it doesn't have to. Things can be | stylized while accounting for accessibility and usability. | | I don't know what to call this "feeling" but man is it | depressing. We went from replicating magazines to making unique | (and often clashing) home pages to trying to appeal to the most | average of sensibilities where it all becomes counter intuitive. | | Probably not fair to pin this on w3c because this can easily | apply to several hundred other sites. | | It really does make you question why bother having a time of | designers, frontend developers, project managers, etc, etc to | just come up with the exact same thing as everyone else. | | [1] https://www.dagusa.com/ | metadaemon wrote: | To be fair, I'm not sure you want a ton of uniqueness when it | comes to documentation, I just want to be able to find what I'm | looking for. For example, IBM and ESRI have what I would | consider to be terrible documentation because of their unique | take on structure. | stillsleepy wrote: | [dead] | bastawhiz wrote: | I don't know, if there's ever a website that I want to be | boring and readable, it's the W3C. I do not want an exciting or | unique W3C site. I want it to be organized and designed to be | as readable and easily navigable as possible. I do not want to | guess how to use a menu or search for links. I want it to work | like that thousands of other boring sites I've used before, | because when I'm at the W3C, I'm not there to be inspired, I'm | there to get some specific information. I don't want any | nonsense between me and the spec I'm looking for. | strangescript wrote: | It kind of depends on what your app is/does. It would be kind | of hypocritical that we all settled on the same form factors | for mobile devices, but we want the apps that we use on them to | all be radically different looking or "artistic". | | Most modern UI kits look and feel the same because we have | figured out what works and what doesn't. | | "why bother having a time of designers" -- on an individual | basic application level, definitely. Just get a reasonable UI | kit and save the money. | somethingAlex wrote: | I think certain fads are a little dreadful in terms of | unoriginality - those humaaans illustrations, for example. But | I think most of the web really should look similar. I think of | brochure websites like resumes: you're trying to depict key | points without distractions and obstacles. Just like that one | person's "unique" resume is actually the last one you want to | read, so is that unnecessarily "original" website. | leethomas wrote: | I disagree, I think a degree of homogenization is good for | information heavy websites, like government ones [1][2][3] and | sites geared towards documentation. Consistency here is good | because it makes things familiar and therefore means people | spend less time trying to figure things out/find what they're | looking for. Creativity isn't necessarily the point with sites | like these. Now if you're marketing a product or showcasing | something on the creative side, that's a different situation | entirely and in that case I agree with you. The Bootstrap wave | 10 years ago was indeed excessive. | | [1] https://18f.gsa.gov/ | | [2] https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/project- | gigabit-... | | [3] https://www.healthcare.gov/ | gkoberger wrote: | I agree with you... except this IS the W3C, and the whole point | is they set standards for websites. If they looked nothing like | every other site, that'd actually be a bigger problem. | mbb70 wrote: | I'd know those FontAwesome icons on | https://beta.w3.org/developers/ anywhere. | | Honestly though consistency is probably preferred here. I see | top nav, a hamburger icon, a breadcrumb title bar and a search | button, I have confidence in my expectations for how those will | behave. With a documentation site, the ability to navigate and | find what you need takes precedence over being 'delighted' by | some landing page. | | Actually in this case they broke my expectation by having the | search just redirect to duckduckgo with a site parameter. | | The Memphis seems like a decently modern take as well with the | gradients thrown in. | riffic wrote: | bikeshedding isn't helpful. | superpope99 wrote: | Do you have have any good examples of useful and visually | interesting websites? | wbobeirne wrote: | I disagree with this specifically for the W3C on everything | _except_ the illustration on the front, which I have dubbed | "big pants people." That's an unnecessarily homogenous design | trend, but everything else is homogenous for the purposes of | readability and accessibility, which is very inline with the | W3C. | CharlesW wrote: | https://www.fastcompany.com/90711508/facebook-made-a- | certain... | | > _The look became derisively known as "globohomo" (global | homogenization), "corporate Memphis," or--even more | archly--"corporate tech style."_ | [deleted] | IceHegel wrote: | As a white male internet user, I don't feel well represented by a | black man, a muslim woman, or a disabled person. | | Unclear if that was the intention of the diagram or not. | samtp wrote: | I think your self-confidence needs a giant boost if you are a | white male who is "concerned about being represented". | | Why don't you go and check the executive boards for the | companies listed in the "Working with stakeholders of the Web" | section to help soothe your fragile ego. | ElijahLynn wrote: | Related: "W3C welcomes feedback on the beta of its new website" - | https://beta.w3.org/news/2023/w3c-welcomes-feedback-on-the-b... | albatross13 wrote: | As an asian american male, I don't feel very represented by: an | african american male, a (seemingly) muslim woman, or a disabled | white woman. | | Swing and a miss, W3C. | vsviridov wrote: | Pandering... Pandering everywhere. | albatross13 wrote: | Hey man, nothing wrong with wanting to ensure your racial | demographic is explicitly represented alongside others that | are being explicitly represented! | raziel31 wrote: | maybe because w3 stands for "WORLD WIDE Web Consortium"? there | is not only USA in this world, it is funny that you are | interfering with the rest of the world for your own social and | political problems. | mardifoufs wrote: | Asians only live in the USA? I know blaming everything on the | US is trendy, but I'm not sure about this one... | IceHegel wrote: | I sense a projection. | jjdeveloper wrote: | Looking at the code on their site a saw this 'class="not- | sidebar"' ... why describe what something is when you can | describe what it isn't! :D | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-02-27 23:00 UTC)