I never said it was a novel concept or that the functionality is confusing. I just said that it's terrible, which it absolutely is, and your video comparison actually reinforces my point.
They could have made this presentation into a 30 second video, which would have extremely simplified the access to information, while also only requiring one click, and still providing the ability to pause the flow of information when necessary. Instead, the page takes 39 manual scrolls to read through a bunch of tech bro jokes.
That's just your opinion. I think it's awesome and if it really "breaks every UI/UX rule in the book" it's a great example of how breaking the rules can be a good thing.
I'd love to hear exactly why you think it's "awesome" and "a good thing" to force users to scroll an entire window height in order to read part of one sentence.
The reality is that they could have produced this same concept in a way that doesn't force such extreme interaction to consume very minimal content, resulting in the same "awesomeness" without wasting the user's time or energy.
I could say the same thing about your commentary -- sounds like you just can't accept the fact that people don't like it -- which ought to tell you just how obnoxious you're acting right now.
Unless you have something new to add to the conversation, it's beyond trollish to repeatedly assert that I shouldn't be allowed to speak my mind (or even respond to people who replied to me) just because I don't agree with you.
I've said nothing of the sort. I do however have a problem with you aggressively arguing that there's an objective truth [1] and patronizing every explanation you get for why people like it [2]. No-one has said you can't have an opinion. Good try though.
> I've said nothing of the sort. [...] No-one has said you can't have an opinion.
You've told me to "accept it and move on" at least three times, which is an assertion that I shouldn't comment or express my opinion. So yes, you said exactly something of the sort, multiple times. That you're trying to convince me otherwise is some extreme gaslighting.
> I do however have a problem with you aggressively arguing
You're greatly exaggerating any perceived aggression. You try to make it sound like I'm some troll resorting to name-calling, when all I've actually done is provide detailed arguments based on actual experience. You're welcome to interpret them as aggressive or patronizing or whatever you like, but that's entirely subjective, ironically.
If anything, I'd say repeatedly replying to all of my comments and telling me to "move on" is far more aggressive than anything I've said.
> that there's an objective truth
Again, you're pretending that neither standardization nor subject matter experts exist.
No, I don't need to justify anything here. There's no argument to be had. The point is that bryans is claiming the landing page is objectively bad and doesn't seem to accept that we obviously like it. A lot of people have told him why they do but he keeps arguing. No idea why you want to defend such a toxic person.
> The point is that bryans is claiming the landing page is objectively bad and doesn't seem to accept that we obviously like it.
You keep mentioning this "we" as if you speak for the entire world. In reality, there are far more commenters speaking negatively about the site than there are positively.
> A lot of people have told him why they do but he keeps arguing.
You're again suggesting that I shouldn't be allowed to respond to people who replied to me, which is antithetical to how forums work. And, in fact, almost no one has actually articulated why they like it -- they've just said that they like it, while refusing to acknowledge any negative aspects.
> No idea why you want to defend such a toxic person.
The irony here is very rich -- you calling other people toxic, when all you've done so far is tell me that I shouldn't be allowed to express my opinions, all because you don't personally agree with those opinions.
The concepts presented , If the reader is not already well versed in the domain, seem hard to digest in under 30s if in video form . I’m from a backend world and frontend sometimes seems wild how fast it moves/changes… have you ever read a book and savored a single sentence ? Reflecting on what it says and the implications ? I find this site to be amazing at doing this or at least offering a great opportunity to do so. If I watch a 30s video, I would more easily “indigest”
The concepts because they would be presented so fast then be lost after seconds, as the video moves onto the next topic.
Perhaps you are coming at the interpretation from an “experts” viewpoint? (With all the bonuses/hindrances that can come along with it)
As I mentioned already, videos have pause buttons. If you were struggling to grok a particular portion of a video, you have every opportunity to pause and analyze, but you'd also be able to continue watching a portion without any interaction if you already understood it.
And as the GP pointed out, the layout and content is essentially already in video form. They just chopped that video up into a website that forces the user to consume that tiny amount of content in an extremely specific way, which also requires a bunch of extra effort and massively wastes time -- for example, 3 full scrolls just to get past an animation full of loading icons and a single completely irrelevant sentence.
If breaking the rules means alienating people who like Reader Mode, PgUp/PgDn buttons, disabling JS, printing or exporting as a PDF, or reading on a constrained device: maybe the "rules" exist to protect underrepresented ways to read webpages.
> I prefer this presentation over a PDF or a video. It works and I like it. You don't, then move on.
I could say the same thing to you -- if you like it, then move on. Nobody is forcing you to read my comments, and it is antithetical to the concept of a public forum to assert that I shouldn't be allowed to comment just because you don't agree with me.
> Counting "scrolls" (whatever that means) can't be a healthy way to engage with something you don't enjoy.
As a web developer, half of my job is analyzing metrics which describe how effective and usable a website is. This particular thread is a discussion about site usability, and I'm using decades of experience and actual site data to show how bad the usability is, which very relevantly includes counting how many times they are forcing someone to scroll to read a single paragraph of text.
What a ridiculously untrue and narrow-minded statement. If you've only worked at companies where you're one tiny cog amidst ten thousand employees, sure, you may have a designer or psychologist who specializes in UI/UX analysis. However, that does not describe the VAST MAJORITY of tech teams, and frankly, any frontend developer who isn't analyzing their output or at least taking a moment to think "hey, maybe 39 scrolls is too much for this task," doesn't really care about or understand what they're doing.
I specialize in working with startups and small development teams getting their tech stack up and running or fixing growing pains. I must have worked with hundreds of teams at this point, and not once has it been standard fair. You are MASSIVELY conflating noticing a UI inconsistency with analyzing usability metrics, the two things aren't even in the same arena, and the fact that you would compare the two gives me the idea that you may be on the more junior side.
They could have made this presentation into a 30 second video, which would have extremely simplified the access to information, while also only requiring one click, and still providing the ability to pause the flow of information when necessary. Instead, the page takes 39 manual scrolls to read through a bunch of tech bro jokes.