What does /g/ think of minimal website design?

File: istenvertebarmok.jpg (509KB, 1020x976px) Image search: [Google]

509KB, 1020x976px

>>57462394
I think they are cool, but i prefer some standard dominant colors used on them, like classic red.

File: minimalist_web_designs_22theissland.jpg (19KB, 600x404px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 600x404px

You can have a minimalist design without your website looking like it hasn't been updated since the 90s.

http://designinstruct.com/visual-inspiration/web-design-inspiration/minimalist-web-designs/

http://designinstruct.com/visual-inspiration/web-design-inspiration/minimalist-website-designs/

>>57462502
>trying to pull in a shit load of JS
>"""""minimal"""""

This is such cancer. Same with people with "minimal" desktops that still suck in 2GB of RAM.

>>57462502
Big difference between minimalist aesthetic and technical minimalism. It's obvious which one OP meant

>>57462394

not as good as stallman.org

>>57462699
To be fair, it actually looks quite good in a text browser.

>>57462502
> minimal
> JS and fonts everywhere
Yeah, no.

>>57462394
Its cute. As in actually sticking to principles.


I'd rather not deal with 5 MB website when I can get the same exact information from a text based few KB site.

>>57462502
millennial garbage.

>>57462394
probably cause that's the only way warren can browse it on his dumb phone

>>57462394
http://www.amistech.com/msc/
How about this style?

>minimal

That implies that this kind of design is less than "normal" designs, rather than what they are actually, which is "functional."

The whole point of the web is to provide "universal access" to documents.

>>57463115
Not as good as this work of genius.
http://www.lingscars.com/

File: 08.jpg (423KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 1920x1080px

>>57463115
>http://www.amistech.com/msc/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0IZ_TEzg7M

Lol Finland, this game is crazy. I'm interested. Thanks anon.

Its shit.

Learn a shitty CSS framework—like foundation, bootstrap or if you want to be modern, bulma, and stop being a nonresponsive web dev shitter

http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/

>>57464576
>Javascript
Yes I do want to fight about it, why does your "simple website" need to track people that access it?

>>57462502
Why does it need to look "modern"? The OP is perfectly functional.

>>57462394

How websites should be.

Fast as fuck, to the point, no bullshit at all.

I dislike most website designs now - and I outright hate those designed with mobile devices with touch screens in mind (looking at you, http://www.suhr.com/ )

>>57462502
Yup you can be minimal all day long so long as you understand good typography and color theory.

what do you guys think of this design?

worldoflinux.org

File: hehe.png (72KB, 1106x761px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1106x761px

>>57464576
>http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/

wtb a faster web server

File: giphy.gif (223KB, 220x200px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 220x200px

needs more jifs and embedded music

>>57462699
looks pretty functional desu

has all the links and features that one would ever need

www.sheldonbrown.com

To this day, the best everything-bicycle site.

>>57464989
> jifs
Guaranteed replies.

http://www.lingscars.com/

there are two sorts of "design" when we talk about design. one is the superficial "does it look shiny and aesthetically pleasing" design, which might be what the OP is alluding to, but the other is "what are the affordances and interactions that you plan for the user to have" design.

if you look at craigslist, it's a good example of scoring poorly on the first definition of design but very well on the second. you see lots of imagined redesigns of craigslist, wikipedia, etc... redesigning the UI so it scores better on the first dimension (to them, at least; the first dimension is also much more subjective, so it's up for debate) but ends up doing much more poorly on the second one.

the second form of design is the one that people who study design end up actually spending the most time thinking about and learning about. that's the kind of design that matters. and the misunderstanding about this when you talk to designers is a little like when family learns you study CS or engineering and they say "oh well then you should be able to fix my computer's wifi" or something.

>>57466088
tl;dr learn to code

File: Capture.png (11KB, 662x461px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 662x461px

>>57462502
I literally don't know the company's name, what they do, where they are located. There is no content. Just a big square with a stupid slogan.

The best part is that these websites are built on massive JavaScript frameworks with every technology imaginable.

I love websites like the OP posted. Other good examples are Craigslist and Wikipedia, even 4chan, although they might be on the heavier side.

>>57462439

>lewl keke

>>57462502
looks like absolute garbage, even the 90s design is better

>>57462502
This is what minimalism looks like. Not that javascript abortion.
http://www.csszengarden.com/218/

Could literally save the world, due to the massive reduction in power required to host and serve them.

>>57464576
https://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/
https://bestmotherfucking.website/

>>57469395
The issue with these sites is that they're all single page. There needs to be a version where you can navigate around a site with the same philosophy.

Basically something like OP's or Stallman's site.

>>57462502
>web 3.0
fuck off

>>57469395
the bottom one is lovely.

I think zenhabits is the best compromise between technological simplicity and aesthetics.

>>57462394
>""""""""""minimal""""""""""
>not removing all CSS

[...[...document.querySelectorAll("link")].filter(e=>/stylesheet/.test(e.getAttribute("rel"))),...document.querySelectorAll("style")].forEach(e=>e.parentNode&&e.parentNode.removeChild(e));[...document.querySelectorAll("*")].forEach(e=>e.removeAttribute("style"))

>>57466296
... no, that's not the gist of what i was saying at all.

>>57462394
http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/
not even a fb button
sure this people cannot into programming lol

>>57469467
http://www.cjas.org/~leng/

>>57469688
>open website
nice
>go to blog
wtf

>>57469768
It's just Blogger, not a custom solution.

>>57462502
>80MB of scripts

>parallax video under the text

>huge areas of nothing

no, you're a fag.

>>57462502
do most of these people just bash everything together with pre-made stuff someone else did?

are most web designers actually hopeless at scripting? it would explain a lot.

>>57470119
Web developers have to justify their pay cheque somehow. Going "look how pretty it all looks and we can track all the users!" sounds good to CEOs.

>>57470149
Oh, that's fine. I'm more wondering along the lines of "do they actually know how to web-dev (i.e. could they assemble this from scratch if forced), or do they just hack together stuff made by other people?"

File: 1454285845860.gif (1MB, 580x433px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 580x433px

>>57462502

File: 1478016966862.jpg (46KB, 471x350px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 471x350px

>>57462502

Does 4chan count as minimal design?

>>57470726
It did once.

>>57462439
Is this real? Holy shit based gigabyte.

File: 1450478726539.jpg (31KB, 408x408px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 408x408px

>>57462439
>lewl keke

>>57462394
I don't like multi column. I would experiment with the font, the size and margins. Headlines without content are a NoGo. Minimalstic is ok but I would add some css to it. Test it against mobile and 4K layouts.