[TuringNYC]

This conflates websites as a medium of art or personal expression vs websites as a medium of business communication. For the latter, I just want to get the point across quickly and painlessly. For the former, everyone is welcome to design whatever they want and consume as much time is required.

[systemvoltage]

No, truly utilitarian websites look and function like this: https://smxi.org/docs/inxi.htm

The template in the article is exact opposite. It conveys bloat, unoriginality and impedes efficient communication of information.

[socialismisok]

Here's the thing, that website doesn't actually efficiently communicate as well as you think it does.

Information hierarchies have a bunch of channels to get the reader to understand what's important and what's not. Text size, color, motion, placement, rotation, contrast, images, etc. all contribute to drawing the eye to key pieces of information.

The link you presented is simple, yes, but the information hierarchy is nearly flat. It presents all the information as equally important by reducing the channels for information transmission it uses.

Our eyes focus on certain details because we have monkey brains that have been trained to pattern match certain things.

[systemvoltage]

I am not convinced. It does a far better job of organizing information in my opinion. Clear, concise, zero bullshit.

[socialismisok]

Ok. I'm sorry you aren't convinced.

Here are some resources to educate yourself:

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/visual-hierarchy-ux-definit...

https://xd.adobe.com/ideas/process/information-architecture/...

https://uxplanet.org/visual-hierarchy-and-ux-design-a-guide-...

https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/visual-...

https://guides.lib.wayne.edu/iaux

It's a field of study that has research to back it up. It's great you find that link legible, but most people would not. Even most developers would find it helpful to tweak whitespace, use headers, and layout the content a little more structured to improve legibility.

[systemvoltage]

Most of the UX studies are subjectivism dressed as objectivism.

The entire field is like nutrition or fitness, 90% of it is bogus and made up. None of these studies have proper controlled experiments while still trying to appear as authoritative.

No one takes a step back and realize that physical books are an interface and so is your kitchen. Photons hitting your eyeballs have no clue if it came from a computer monitor or the world around you. Organizing visual information is far deeper than these "UI/UX" experts.

[socialismisok]

Here's five studies:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q=Djamasbi%2C%20S.%2C%20...

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q=Djamasbi%2C%20S.%2C%20...

https://ourapps.princeton.edu/uploads/190805104123-A-3176.pd...

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.87...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780124081383/eye-trackin...

I'm sorry, you just don't know what you are talking about. This is a widely studied area in human computer interaction both academically and informally.

[Ferret7446]

None of those back up your assertions about the linked website, which has very clear information hierarchy. Category nav links at the top. Key topic links in a list and sublists (how's that for hierarchy?). The information hierarchy is easy to see and navigate, much unlike modern websites which mislead the reader with a lot of irrelevant images and layouts.

[socialismisok]

The limited site is like 4 blobs of text with equal weight. Yes, it has a nav bar, but it's not at all trying to emphasize the key takeaways.

[osigurdson]

Yeah but outside of HN, that is probably considered dated/ugly.

[systemvoltage]

That's not my point. I am responding to OP that if we don't care about dated/ugly/not-unique/fashion/medium-of-expression/art/etc, then inxi website does the job better than the template.

[hombre_fatal]

That’s not all that functional. The only two links I clicked, changelog and cli options, are just copy and pasted as preformated text that scrolls horizontally.

Putting zero thought behind UX isn’t the pinnacle of UX despite what we celebrate on HN.

[xupybd]

Yeah, but they don't sell to a very wide audience. It needs to look nice, not unique.

[TuringNYC]

>> No, truly utilitarian websites look and function like this: https://smxi.org/docs/inxi.htm

To some extent, the majority determines what is utilitarian. Once Bootstrap achieved mass familiarity, it became utilitarian -- because almost everyone knows how to interact with it, the flow, the location of the information.

I checked out the site you shared -- it is indeed utilitarian...but it is also unfamiliar and hence to me, it makes it more difficult to find the required information at a glance.

while I agree with you in theory, As a business operator, i'd rather win the customer than win the academic debate.

[stjohnswarts]

If you have your business website look like that then you are gonna lose a lot of customers before they even start reading. It looks like it's from the 90s

[systemvoltage]

https://berkshirehathaway.com/

If you're talking about a business that needs to market to customers through a website; I agree with you.

But I thought OP is talking about efficient communication which I what I responded to. Every comment response is completely misunderstanding where I am coming from.