|
|
|
|
|
|
by julvo
1541 days ago
|
|
|
Comparing Gwern's to your website is really interesting. I'd argue, Gwern's website is a good example of minimalist design, whereas the website you posted is the opposite. To me, minimalist design is as little design as possible (Dieter Rams). All design elements need to serve and enhance usability/functionality of the product. That doesn't mean that the total functionality of something needs to be minimal. E.g. you can still have tags, recommended articles and a comment section. In the website you posted, I see design elements that don't serve the usability of the website, but are there just for design sake. E.g. the background image, the colour of the toolbar or the right alignment of the text |
|
|
Every single thing you listed has a purpose.
> the background image
is a blurry gradient of colors magenta and orange, angled off-axis. In other words, the complete opposite of the page contents: Sharp black and white precisely-aligned text.
The purpose of a background is to contrast the foreground. Mission accomplished.
> the colour of the toolbar
is one of the only persistently consistent visual elements across the entire website, which features many very different color schemes in its content. Take this page [0] for instance; as the menu elements you refer to lie on a higher level of interface hierarchy, this color of the toolbar sets the topmost brand tone of the entire website.
[0] https://hypertele.fi/d9a64d59472ad05b
> the right alignment of the text
Quoting the very page under discussion:
When your eyes read to the end of a line of text, they have to jump to the beginning of the next one. Left-justified text causes all lines to start at the same vertical, making your eyes sometimes miss the jump and begin reading a wrong line. This is why you're sometimes reading the same line twice by accident. By right-justifying instead, the left edge of the text is made variying, and your eyes have an easier time picking the correct next line.