[toastercat]

Anytime tonsky's site gets posted here, I'm reminded by how awful it is, which is ironic given his UI/UX background. The site's lightmode is a blinding saturated yellow, and if you switch into darkmode, it's an even less readable "cute" flashlight js trick. I don't know why he thought this was a good idea. Thank god for Firefox reader mode.

[ericmcer]

I don't think he added moving cursors all over the page because he thought it was good UI/UX, he knows what he is doing.

[toastercat]

I'm having a hard time reconciling "he knows what he is doing" with him making his site practically unusable without a reader mode, which by the way, not every browser supports (especially on mobile).

[throwaway290]

Don't even think of switching on the dark (night) mode with that attitude! :D

I really enjoyed the tongue in cheek design. I think every modern browser either allows you to turn on reader mode (especially on mobile) or just turn off CSS. This particular article works excellently even in w3m.

[slipperlobster]

Fine, sure. Cute - turn on reader mode. Now the images that are supposed to be sitting over yellow background are dark gray images over a slightly less dark gray background.

The decision to design a serious (read: not-tongue-in-cheek) topic with these "quirky" tricks sucks, JMHO.

[toastercat]

> Don't even think of switching on the dark (night) mode with that attitude! :D

:D

> I really enjoyed the tongue in cheek design. I think every modern browser either allows you to turn on reader mode (especially on mobile) or just turn off CSS. This particular article works excellently even in w3m.

Firefox Focus on mobile does not have Reader Mode.

[throwaway290]

Fair enough. Tbh at a different time I would probably be as pissed at the author as anyone. Might be mood dependent.

I should also add that the night mode won't be as fun on mobile either, just checked and I don't think it works with pointer events for the effect

[876978095789789]

He appears (if his logos are anything to go by) to be a flat UI guy. I doubt any of these people know what they're doing.

[superq]

This is seemingly self-contradictory. Perhaps you could explain your reasoning further?

[gpvos]

Doing bad things is their idea of fun.

[ksoped]

You gotta know the rules to bend the rules

[chaorace]

It lets you hold hands with strangers

[Scarbutt]

It's called satire.

[LordDragonfang]

It's deeply ironic that an article about dealing with text properly has images which are part of the article text and yet have no alt-text, rendering parts of the article unreadable in reader mode if the server is slow.

[spacechild1]

It is obviously a joke (and a good one, I dare say). The fact that people seem to take it seriously says something about the contemporary state of webdesign :)

[mplewis]

It would be a better joke if there were an option to turn the joke off. As it is, dark mode doesn't exist and the pointers occlude text.

[spacechild1]

> It would be a better joke if there were an option to turn the joke off.

As others have pointed out, reader mode works as expected.

[toastercat]

1. Not every browser has reader mode

2. I don't think it's a very good joke to post long-form content on your blog with the expectation that it's basically unreadable without a reader mode.

> The fact that people seem to take it seriously says something about the contemporary state of webdesign :)

Mind expanding and what it says exactly about contemporary web design?

Whether I take it seriously or not doesn't change the fact that it's still damn hard to read anything.

[spacechild1]

> Mind expanding and what it says exactly about contemporary web design?

The same as when political satire is indistinguishable from actual politics. It means that the real things has sort of become a joke itself.

[toastercat]

I can agree that most modern web design is bad. I can also agree that the web design on tonsky's site is bad, but OK, I acknowledge that it is intentionally bad; so bad that it's unreadable. I had myself a chuckle now, and next time I see a link to tonsky's site, I'll click on it, chuckle, and immediately leave.

[tqwhite]

If you don't have reader mode, get a new browser. Don't tell him to make it boring for all the rest of us who behave normally.

[toastercat]

Boring and readable are not the same thing. Also, you can edit your comments on HackerNews

[tqwhite]

Also, I read it perfectly well and never thought about switching to reader. It made me laugh.

[coldpie]

Works like a normal website with JavaScript disabled. I didn't even know it did fancy junk until reading the comments here. NoScript saves the day again! I don't know how people can browse the web without it.

[redder23]

I never understood how people can browser the we WITH IT. Even 10 years ago. today more then ever basically every website needs JS to work properly. I basically never come across a page where I have the urge to disable JS. I have a large list of adblock lists active that also help getting rid of cookie banners and other shit.

I can not imagine manually approving JS for every site. And again doing the inverse and have noscript installed to deny one website a year does not seem to be worth it for me. In this case I can also just use a adblock rule to block that specific script or all .js files from the domain I guess. So I really no not need NoScript.

[coldpie]

Many sites don't need JS at all, like the OP of this thread for example. For a lot of sites, disabling JS actually gives a better experience than leaving it enabled, again like the OP of this thread. It's a trade-off, but I find most uses of JS are so bad it's worth putting up with whitelisting. For example, I don't see cookie pop-ups, I don't see videos, disabling JS kills most of those stupid sticky headers that web designers love so much, and whatever too-clever crap the OP of this thread was doing is completely bypassed. The web is so, so much better with JS off by default.

For those sites that do need JS, NoScript's whitelist feature makes it quick & easy to fix. The first time I visit a new site, if it is obviously broken, then I whitelist the main domain. If that doesn't fix it, then I whitelist a couple likely-looking domains (often sites import JS from similar domains, or from common library domains). That's enough to get probably 90+% of websites working, while still leaving most garbage JS disabled. The remaining ~10% of websites that need a dozen domains whitelisted are probably not worth visiting anyway, so I just move on at that point. Or NoScript even lets you temp-whitelist everything for a given tab and just put up with the misery to get whatever I need from that one site. Since the whitelist persists forever, and I don't visit hundreds of different websites every day, after some time it becomes pretty rare that I need to whitelist more than one or two things per day.

You maintain an adblock blacklist, I maintain a NoScript whitelist. Not so different :)

[jandrese]

By default the script for the page itself is whitelisted, it is just the third party scripts that are blocked. This works fairly often, but there are a few sites that you can also globally unblock because they provide value. One example is mathjax, used to format equations on many pages.

[gpvos]

It is some time ago since I last used it, but I found that too many websites that I want to read require Javascript to even show you the main body of text, or a reasonable layout. Is that different now?

[coldpie]

No. Just whitelist the main domain for sites that are obviously broken. Then try one or two likely subdomains if that's not enough. In the rare cases where it still wants more crap enabled, then it's usually not worth the effort, close tab and move on to something else. As you build up a whitelist over time, it becomes pretty rare that you need to interact with it more than a couple times per day. Yeah, it takes some effort, but it's worth it to nuke cookie banners and sticky headers and videos and all the other crap people do with JS.

[gpvos]

I already have that routine with uBlock Origin. I don't think NoScript offers all of uBO's functionality, and I certainly won't do the same dance for two extensions, but I'll look into uBO's abilities to specifically block JS.

[coldpie]

Makes sense! I use both, uBO just does its thing and I never interact with it. NoScript handles blocking & whitelisting javascript. It's totally possible uBO has a similar feature and I just don't know about it.

[aembleton]

By using reader mode

[johnnyanmac]

>it's an even less readable "cute" flashlight js trick. I don't know why he thought this was a good idea. Thank god for Firefox reader mode.

not even a proper flashlight. it updates when the mouse moves, so you're SOL if you scroll on desktop.

[torgard]

Well, I thought it was fun.

[Arech]

I'd say this annoying trick is highly appropriate for the topic!