[defanor]

I keep checking those minimalism-related websites and guidelines, as well as software projects, just to find out how much views on such a seemingly simple thing vary.

For instance, this article argues against unnecessary elements, yet it's about 1.8 MB, has rather useless (IMO) pictures, and I had to scroll down 1.5 screens (in a desktop FF) to see the beginning of the article. And then there are regular vague advices.

Apparently some focus on visual minimalism, others -- on pages being lightweight, yet others -- on minimal technologies. And what some would see as necessity others see as bloat.

[godshatter]

Agree. Shouldn't a "minimal" website have everything it needs on one page? Huge images you have to scroll past to read anything useful isn't being minimal, it's just cruft. Surely it's possible to build a website that doesn't take up a lot of screen real-estate, has everything necessary to function, and still looks professional and aesthetically pleasing?

[MaxBarraclough]

> Surely it's possible to build a website that doesn't take up a lot of screen real-estate, has everything necessary to function, and still looks professional and aesthetically pleasing?

Given that we're on HackerNews, I think we can answer that with certainty.

Well, I suppose looks professional and aesthetically pleasing are subjective, but I wouldn't change HackerNews's look.

[joevandyk]

You might have more engagement from more people with larger, more prominent images.

[HelloNurse]

With Internet Explorer (and some cruel and unusual filters, proxies and firewalls) the linked article loads but it is displayed as a solid black rectangle.

No better way to prove the importance of avoiding useless complication, in this case gratuitous ornamental Javascript.

[janci]

Also the scroll position indicator is unnecessary noise, as they call it in the article.