[have_faith]

Did anyone else enjoy it for what it was? I get the criticisms, you want the web to be homogenised and free from any form of expression that doesn't present every piece of information in it's most human-machine digestible form, I get it. But it was pretty simple to use and the flair was minimal. I don't understand the pitchforks. There's a few minor annoyances like the back button not working as expected, but they are very minor for a site so small.

[epicide]

I quite enjoyed it. I liked that they didn't just give you a checklist of "things to do", but instead gave you broad "laws" that you can interpret how you see fit coupled with the reasoning behind that law. This keeps each one applicable to multiple scenarios and isn't prescriptive.

I think a lot of the hate comes from people seeing that it's about UX and want to immediately tear it down for not being how they personally prefer information (apparently, if it's not the most information dense way possible, they don't like it).

I actually think having a distinct picture and making you scroll a bit helped me. The distinct picture is a good mnemonic and makes each law stand out from the others (especially by using different colors). If you had them all squished together with no scrolling necessary and no colors, it would be hard to distinguish between them. Sure, it might be more efficient to scroll through, but that in itself might be the point: reading through something and actually grokking it does not happen by scrolling through it as fast as possible, so why optimize for that?

It looks fine on mobile to me. The only real complaint I had was losing my position on hitting back, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that they consciously made it do that. Probably just a bug/oversight.

[cptskippy]

> I get the criticisms, you want the web to be homogenised and free from any form of expression that doesn't present every piece of information in it's most human-machine digestible form, I get it.

You don't get it, you just minimized and dismissed everyone's objections to this site.

As a power point presentation, this site is great. As a line item on your resume, sure.

As a resource that someone can use and reference, it's awful.

[superhuzza]

Right, and it's clearly not a reference website, considering it's a random selection of a few UX guidelines.

[wldcordeiro]

It looks like an individual's side project to learn a few tools and make something sort of fun and informational. Maybe it's not the immediate perfect solution of all things but so what.

[superhuzza]

Agreed, I thought it was kind of cool. I work in UX, so some aspects bother me - but it probably serves it's purpose well.

[michaelcampbell]

As a truck, a car is also awful.

[debaserab2]

I think criticism is warranted if you make a website literally called “the laws of UX” and then break half of them with the site presenting them.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Breaking the back button is not a minor annoyance, it's a major design error. Site size is irrelevant.

Arguably, the rest of the site is also a major design error. Its style over substance approach doesn't look or work like most web sites.

In fact it looks like an excuse to design a set of virtual retro book covers that reference the stylings of the late 1960s and early 1970s.

I have nothing against vintage book covers, but it seems like an unusual choice for a site about modern web design.

[oneeyedpigeon]

Which browser are you using that this site breaks its back button? Works for me on chrome/android.

[culot]

As an art installation, for its visuals and animations? It's nice, I like it. Its problem is that it's trying to peddle information, and doing so in a highly inefficient way.

[soneca]

Please don't draw a strawman about me and the arguments I made pretending you "get" what I want with such dismissive and patronizing attitude.

I was one of the critics and I gave very explicit, objective criticism on the points I considered awful. And it has nothing to do with what your arrogant intelect generalized.

[kakarot]

> I get the criticisms, you want the web to be homogenised and free from any form of expression that doesn't present every piece of information in it's most human-machine digestible form, I get it.

That's some very thick and obvious rhetoric.

It's a few different fallacies rolled into one, most notably a Straw Man.

You are in essence defining your opponents terms by your own book to shape the argument in a way favorable to you, instead of approaching the criticism from an objective and open-minded perspective that respects the actual position of the critic.

[taco_emoji]

The author forgot rule #0: the design should serve the content, not the other way around.

[jessaustin]

Holy butthurt criticized criticizers, Batman! Upvoted this comment, for all the catty self-important comments it inspired.