What does Sup Forums think of minimal website design?
What does Sup Forums think of minimal website design?
Other urls found in this thread:
designinstruct.com
designinstruct.com
amistech.com
lingscars.com
youtube.com
motherfuckingwebsite.com
suhr.com
csszengarden.com
bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com
bestmotherfucking.website
fon.hum.uva.nl
cjas.org
twitter.com
I think they are cool, but i prefer some standard dominant colors used on them, like classic red.
You can have a minimalist design without your website looking like it hasn't been updated since the 90s.
designinstruct.com
designinstruct.com
>trying to pull in a shit load of JS
>"""""minimal"""""
This is such cancer. Same with people with "minimal" desktops that still suck in 2GB of RAM.
Big difference between minimalist aesthetic and technical minimalism. It's obvious which one OP meant
not as good as stallman.org
To be fair, it actually looks quite good in a text browser.
> minimal
> JS and fonts everywhere
Yeah, no.
Its cute. As in actually sticking to principles.
I'd rather not deal with 5 MB website when I can get the same exact information from a text based few KB site.
millennial garbage.
probably cause that's the only way warren can browse it on his dumb phone
amistech.com
How about this style?
>minimal
That implies that this kind of design is less than "normal" designs, rather than what they are actually, which is "functional."
The whole point of the web is to provide "universal access" to documents.
Not as good as this work of genius.
lingscars.com
youtube.com
Lol Finland, this game is crazy. I'm interested. Thanks user.
bump
Its shit.
Learn a shitty CSS frameworkâlike foundation, bootstrap or if you want to be modern, bulma, and stop being a nonresponsive web dev shitter
>Javascript
Yes I do want to fight about it, why does your "simple website" need to track people that access it?
Why does it need to look "modern"? The OP is perfectly functional.
How websites should be.
Fast as fuck, to the point, no bullshit at all.
I dislike most website designs now - and I outright hate those designed with mobile devices with touch screens in mind (looking at you, suhr.com
Yup you can be minimal all day long so long as you understand good typography and color theory.
what do you guys think of this design?
worldoflinux.org
wtb a faster web server
needs more jifs and embedded music
looks pretty functional desu
has all the links and features that one would ever need
www.sheldonbrown.com
To this day, the best everything-bicycle site.
> jifs
Guaranteed replies.
there are two sorts of "design" when we talk about design. one is the superficial "does it look shiny and aesthetically pleasing" design, which might be what the OP is alluding to, but the other is "what are the affordances and interactions that you plan for the user to have" design.
if you look at craigslist, it's a good example of scoring poorly on the first definition of design but very well on the second. you see lots of imagined redesigns of craigslist, wikipedia, etc... redesigning the UI so it scores better on the first dimension (to them, at least; the first dimension is also much more subjective, so it's up for debate) but ends up doing much more poorly on the second one.
the second form of design is the one that people who study design end up actually spending the most time thinking about and learning about. that's the kind of design that matters. and the misunderstanding about this when you talk to designers is a little like when family learns you study CS or engineering and they say "oh well then you should be able to fix my computer's wifi" or something.
tl;dr learn to code
I literally don't know the company's name, what they do, where they are located. There is no content. Just a big square with a stupid slogan.
The best part is that these websites are built on massive JavaScript frameworks with every technology imaginable.
I love websites like the OP posted. Other good examples are Craigslist and Wikipedia, even Sup Forums, although they might be on the heavier side.
>lewl keke
looks like absolute garbage, even the 90s design is better
This is what minimalism looks like. Not that javascript abortion.
csszengarden.com
Could literally save the world, due to the massive reduction in power required to host and serve them.
The issue with these sites is that they're all single page. There needs to be a version where you can navigate around a site with the same philosophy.
Basically something like OP's or Stallman's site.
>web 3.0
fuck off
the bottom one is lovely.
I think zenhabits is the best compromise between technological simplicity and aesthetics.
>""""""""""minimal""""""""""
>not removing all CSS
[...[...document.querySelectorAll("link")].filter(e=>/stylesheet/.test(e.getAttribute("rel"))),...document.querySelectorAll("style")].forEach(e=>e.parentNode&&e.parentNode.removeChild(e));[...document.querySelectorAll("*")].forEach(e=>e.removeAttribute("style"))
... no, that's not the gist of what i was saying at all.
fon.hum.uva.nl
not even a fb button
sure this people cannot into programming lol
>open website
nice
>go to blog
wtf
It's just Blogger, not a custom solution.
>80MB of scripts
>parallax video under the text
>huge areas of nothing
no, you're a fag.
do most of these people just bash everything together with pre-made stuff someone else did?
are most web designers actually hopeless at scripting? it would explain a lot.
Web developers have to justify their pay cheque somehow. Going "look how pretty it all looks and we can track all the users!" sounds good to CEOs.
Oh, that's fine. I'm more wondering along the lines of "do they actually know how to web-dev (i.e. could they assemble this from scratch if forced), or do they just hack together stuff made by other people?"
...
...
Does Sup Forums count as minimal design?
It did once.
Is this real? Holy shit based gigabyte.
>lewl keke
I don't like multi column. I would experiment with the font, the size and margins. Headlines without content are a NoGo. Minimalstic is ok but I would add some css to it. Test it against mobile and 4K layouts.