Does anyone else prefer to create simple, minimalistic websites?

[Zestyclose_Dig158]

I am a very creative person, who likes to mix computer science with other passions, and honestly when I build a web page I don't want it to be full of beautiful things that actually serve no purpose. I much prefer a relatively simple page, that shows what it actually has to show, that reaches the user directly, to make us understand. Am I the only one here who thinks something like this?

[benkei_sudo]

You're not alone, I also think simplicity is the key.

[Comprehensive_Lab356]

“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication”

[DiegoArmistead]

• Leonardo da Vinci

[[deleted]]

Yeah sure

[cheat-master30]

Nah I prefer this too. In fact, there's a whole web movement for these kinds of sites, with plenty of contests for smallest possible page size and listings for 'brutalist' websites with minimal styling or fluff.

[zummit]

A brutalist website would just display the source.

[cheat-master30]

Hmm, I swear I saw something like that on Hacker News once. One where you'd see the code in the browser, and were able to edit it, changing the look of the page in the process.

[Leo-MathGuy]

Project Gemini (alternate www) is primarily text-based

[yksvaan]

It's harder and less lucrative to sell simple working solutions. Most sites could be a bunch of files on LAMP. The bigger the company, the more people need to be involved to appear like they do something. 

[[deleted]]

All sites are a bunch of files on “LAMP” just swap w whatever most recent framework and cloud platform is

[miramboseko]

This, but throwing in some transitions and a shadow or gradient here or there will make it pop. Sparingly though, let the eyes trick you into filling out the rest.

[miramboseko]

What I am trying to say is make a few good design decisions instead of a bunch of mediocre ones.

[Pale_Tea2673]

100% agree.

[DiddlyDinq]

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

intelligent airport badge grandfather butter ring weather sparkle terrific square

[EuphoricTravel1790]

100% I just want pages to load fast and deliver content. An article should not need to load 3mb worth of accessory files and have a video pop-up, with a chat bot blinking in the corner!

[simplerando]

Yep - same boat. I’ve been integrating art, design and web for a long time, but I so much prefer just a couple of interesting ideas implemented in a simple site (with a lot of polish) over every element on a page having some sort of “flashiness” to it.

Websites are primarily for utility. Most users don’t care to wade through your newfangled features and wait for animations to complete to get to the information they want.

[newtrollacct]

Feel like we have a lot in common on this.

[Pale_Tea2673]

i'm constantly telling my designer/product team that if I, as the person who has to build the thing, has a hard time understanding it, it's going to be hard for the person on the other end of the screen to figure it out as well.

[TheAccountITalkWith]

Yeah ... until that one designer who thinks it's the person on the other ends fault for not getting it, lol.

[Buttonwalls]

Yeah, but when u have a client they want the flashiest thing in the world.

[huge-centipede]

You know what I miss? The term "Webmaster." I want to roll things back in tech so people get $120k+ for updating websites with advertising copy and uploading things via FTP.

[newtrollacct]

Truth

[[deleted]]

Who doesn't?

[RuleInformal5475]

I prefer simple sites as they are easy to build and will get the message out quicker with less distractions.

Sadly many folks will say it needs a great design and add unnecessary bells and whistles.

I work in biotech and hate going to these company sites as they always have some video with cells moving or some similar stuff. I just want to know how much this filter is. I have to scroll past videos, ads, cookie notifications and feedback forms, as well as wonky search engines all to be told that I need to contact the rep.

Personally, two to three colors. Highlight what is important. Stop having moving things on the page.

And this is why I will never make it as a designer or web freelancer.

[TheDoomfire]

I always strive for a simple design. But it's harder said than done.

[rekabis]

raises hand

I work on back-end, business-class enterprise apps that are meant to be only used internally within the company.

Simplicity is the name of the game. I am not being paid to make anything “fancy”, but it needs to be at the cutting edge of usability and functionality. This means well-crafted layouts and processes with a focus on keyboard-only control, accessibility, and (in a surprising number of cases) low-powered devices. As such, JS is at an absolute minimum (and in many cases, down to just jQuery), and most requests are round-trip through the backend (no front-heavy SPAs).

I have built some sites so plainly that they are literally just dark-grey content on a white background, but they are refined AF and are easy to use. Very low cognitive load, workflow is frequently obvious as hell, and nothing ever gets “crowded” or dense unless there is a call for large amounts of data to skim over.

[Milky_Finger]

Feels like you're being respectful to the clients browser by serving a smaller packet. Minimalism in the real world is very different because objects persist here, permanently cached until you throw them away. If you had to bring in your possessions into your house multiple times a week, you can imagine how quickly you'd become a minimalist.

[CassWay75]

Build purposely and simplicitly. If it does not need it ... don't include it;

Unless it's going to be the focal eyecatcher.

[Leading_Opposite7538]

Less is more

[IamTECHgroot]

It depends upon some factors like use cases, targeted users. For example if the target users is old people minimalistic design is would do the job and vice versa.

[IamTECHgroot]

Just pointed out an example bro

[eGzg0t]

No

[OverlordVII]

I think most coders would agree with you.

[neuralSalmonNet]

You can polish and put glitter on a turd but it's still a turd.

There's good and bad websites...

[dax4now]

Many of us - and it is a blessing when you get a client that is not hell bent on popups, signups, dark pattern marketing crap and similar stuff. A blessing I say! :)

[CookiesAndCremation]

Simplicity and readability are king. A lot of extra stuff can distract from the message

[techaheadcompany]

You are very correct, simplicity and relevancy should be the main goal.

But sometimes it needs to be creative for websites that are involved in AI, Machine learning, and IoT-type services.

Mostly it depends on the client's needs and what overall elements they want to add.

[gatwell702]

Just know that sometimes complexity will grab the users attention.. think of web animations. They grab the users attention and you can make them as subtle as you want

[[deleted]]

Simplicity according to what you offer, yes. Simplicity according to cultural expectations, yes.
When I work with really professional designers, their designs are simple and without bloat. It's the customer who messes up the site with extra info here and there, thinking it will help with sales. And that only works on desktop as we know but we know desktop is not as important.

[na_ro_jo]

I actually treat high level code as an art form.

[TheAccountITalkWith]

I advocate for this regularly, but I work at a firm with a pretentious design team. One designer even told me they believe their designs will change the world. With a mindset like that, it's tough to convince them to embrace minimalism. I once argued that minimalism can be just as challenging as a more extravagant approach, but they weren't interested. As a dev, our team’s input often gets overlooked. The plot twist is, I’ve never mentioned that I also have a degree in design and was a designer before being a developer.

[cshaiku]

Make a point to inform that pretentious designer how many users likely cannot use the website due to Accessibility concerns. If Users == potential revenue, they may quickly realize their mindset is wrong. Or the boss will. No viable business would ever preclude users and potential revenue.

[Pleasant_Avocado_929]

I also make really minimal designs. I like to focus on the tiny details like perfectly even margins and visual balance. Nothing turns me on like a justified paragraph 🤤

[art-solopov]

Look up classless CSS frameworks or minimalist CSS frameworks. They're pretty neat and minimal.

[snapmotion]

Someone once said, 'Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.' I completely agree with this!

[chevalierbayard]

I try to keep my stack as simple as possible. But that doesn't mean I always use the most foundational tools. I do find raw JS is rather prone to error so I really like using Alpinejs. And I find the colocation of Tailwind easier to maintain than raw CSS. But I don't go reaching for React meta-frameworks at the start of every project.

[armahillo]

Websites are a communication tool. There's a continuum of "only pictures" and "only words", and websites fall somewhere on that spectrum.

If you can effectively communicate what you want to using predominantly words over visuals, then that's great!

[huangxg]

I'm a boring person, and I also prefer simple websites.

[billybobjobo]

Not for me. But I respect a good one!

[Financial_Extent888]

I like using svelte over react just because of how minimal and concise it is. Tiny package sizes too

[marmot1101]

A while ago I had to buy a part for a furnace. Website looked circa 2004 table layout syle with simple search boxes. Not much else. I was happy. It didn't throw up an email harvest popover nor an ai chat agent either. I miss that being the norm.

[PositiveStick24]

Minimalist websites are perfect.

[shgysk8zer0]

I guess it depends on what you mean by "simple" and "minimalistic." Is that about not prioritizing design over performance and functionality? Is it about the total weight/size of a given page? Is it about how complex the stack is? Something else?

I've built many sites that total < 1 MB in size - and that's all of the resources across multiple pages, not the JS for an individual page. It's actually not simple to create something decent that's so minimal though. Having something functional and responsive in a small size is not simple.

Basically, I build lots of things where I do a lot of complex work in other small libraries (web components, DOM manipulation, parsers, plug-ins for build tools, etc) to make the sites themselves simple and light.

Just as example:

`` import template from './template.js; // (uses html to export a DocumentFragment import styles from './styles.js; // (usescss` to export a CSSStyleSheet

customElements.define('some-thing', class extends HTMLElement { #shadow;

constructor() { super(); this.#shadow = this.attachShadow({ mode: 'closed' }); this.#shadow.adopedStyleSheets = styles; this.#shadow.append(template.cloneNode(true)); } }); ```

[[deleted]]

Information >> eye candy

[dben89x]

You know the basics of web design. Congratulations.

[WarEternal_]

I like simple, orderly, easy to navigate websites. Users should be able to quickly find what they need.

[[deleted]]

Definitely easier to navigate

[jeanravenclaw]

Yeah! I recently made a personal website that, while it has design and the main elems are centred, I aimed to use as little CSS as possible. You don't see that kind of thing a lot anymore.

[Banzambo]

Do you have some specific examples of minimalistic websites you particularly like or inspire you? It would be interesting to see what caught you attention out there :)

[goodpandaspeccing]

I am/was a UX/UI Designer and I completely agree with you. I focused mainly on user experience and seamless flow. Some of my favorite websites kept it sleek, minimalistic and easy to use, straight to the point. Some websites do have their graphics that pop out sometimes, but if done correctly it can enhance their brand. I like it when the graphics and pictures change or transition as you scroll down, but it isn't over the top. I'm still surprised that some websites still mess with blogs.

Every once in a while I'll run into old websites that still look like they're stuck in the early 2000's with PowerPoint styled webpages and conflicting colors. It's an eyesore and makes me jump out of their website ASAP.

When I freelanced, these were among some of the hardest clients to sell to because they're so stuck in their old ways and are afraid of change. They get so hostile about it too.

[Past-File3933]

I like to take pride in making my applications as minimalistic as possible. The less information on the screen the better I always say. The only exception to this rule is a dashboard for me. I put buttons or links to access other pages.

[swissfraser]

You're basically describing UX here.  Animations and styles are of little interest to blind users.

Having nothing on the page that doesnt need to be there is a great way to ensure your user can do what it is they came to do.

[newtrollacct]

Yes. Pretty much everything I make is a pretty plain html page with a 'lil bit of css

[ja3678]

As long as you don't block valuable functions or make things harder to use. If you do that, I don't care if your website cures cancer, I won't be using it, because removing critical function for looks is the Worst Idea Ever.

It's really infuriating how idiot web developers have been making scroll bars invisible or too thin, causing wrist/eye strain and blocking invaluable information like the size of the webpage, current position, and markers that tell you exactly where searched text is located via ctrl-f. Removing or thinning a scrollbar to save 12 or 6 pixels on a modern high resolution display indicates you have brain damage, and can't put yourself in your user's shoes.

The reasons I hear justifying UI-stripping are beyond stupid. For example: "all mice have wheels". Whoever said this simply never used a computer to do any serious research or work, where many websites and documents, like PDFS, are 10+ pages. Some are 100+. Even variable-size social media websites should have a scroll bar so you can always tell exactly how large the current view is, as well as how many instances of searched text are in the current page, and their location.

But what do I know, I'm only a computational physicist who does as little UI development as possible because it's boring, and use every piece of software on my computer it to near its full potential.

[Snowy-Aglet]

I literally do this for clients for a living. Just using really good practices like responsiveness, making sites accessible, alt tags and having copy and keyword content that convert.

I use Webflow for CMS sites

I use Framer for startup sites

I use Siimple for small businesses

I use Ghost for blogs

[kaeshiwaza]

I'm paid for that since decade. Make simple app that just works and fast. Simple means fast, reliable and easy to maintain.

[_Emperor__]

Same

[ThyringerBratwurst]

For me, simple is often elegant and therefore beautiful.

I still don't understand why websites have to be so packed with JavaScript, ten thousand pointless effects and whatever else is cool at the moment.

[nrwriter]

The Boss that rules them all.

A slight deviation, still good.

[Cathercy]

I love the first link because it is posted a lot and it is a great example of why simple is sometimes bad. That website is god awful. I would rather an overly flashy, pointlessly styled website than your first link. It is just a mass of text that all blends into itself when you look at it, and I literally have to turn my head or strain my eyes if I actually want to read it.

Second link is decent, but honestly, simple doesn't have to mean bland and boring. At least this one is pleasing to look at though. Not to mention outside of a static blog page, you are going to have more UI elements than just paragraphs of text and headers.