= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
LessWrong comments on (Rational) website design and cognitive aesthetics generally- why no uptake? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (19)
Depends on who you're marketing the site to. Programmers would be satisfied by descriptive links or even plain urls. Have you ever seen werc in action?
On the other hand of the scale, you have websites like this that appeals to.. I dunno, this design annoys me but I guess it works otherwise the site wouldn't be there for almost two years I know it.
Regardless of the content of either of those sites, the first is clearly more aesthetically pleasing despite the lack of shit moving around on the page. Scrolling to the bottom of the second (which shouldn't even be a thing at all: it's like a <100px scroll on a standard monitor and even hiding the taskbar and bookmarks toolbar in Chrome still leaves a miniscule amount of vertical scroll) reveals a copyright footer (and "top" link!) that is almost comically out of place after viewing the content above it. I would be very surprised if this site worked because of its modern web facade rather than in spite of it.
Yeah, that mobilitywod site annoys me as well. It's a big part of what I hate about modern 'web apps'.