Why is website design so awful today, generally?

[Boyd01]

I think the free means do whatever you want with it including modifying, republishing, and forking it.

Definitely not. I have published a lot of free software. But it has a license that says it's copyrighted, all rights are reserved and it's not open source. It's for your personal use, education and enjoyment but you can't modify it, publish it or use it for commercial purposes.

Free just means it's free - there is no charge. That is completely separate from whatever license might be associated with it. If a band gives a free concert, that doesn't mean you can modify or publish their music.

 

[MacBH928]

Definitely not. I have published a lot of free software. But it has a license that says it's copyrighted, all rights are reserved and it's not open source. It's for your personal use, education and enjoyment but you can't modify it, publish it or use it for commercial purposes.

Free just means it's free - there is no charge. That is completely separate from whatever license might be associated with it. If a band gives a free concert, that doesn't mean you can modify or publish their music.

you understood me wrong, I meant the "free" part in the "FREE and Open Source Software" and then there is Open Source software but not that you can fork or republish it.

 

[Boyd01]

OK, sorry.

I think what you can do with open source software is usually spelled out in the accompanying license agreement such as one of the BSD licenses, for example.

 

[Nermal]

OK, sorry.

I think what you can do with open source software is usually spelled out in the accompanying license agreement such as one of the BSD licenses, for example.

Bingo. My own software uses a slightly-modified BSD licence and basically says "you can do whatever you like with this, just don't blame me if your computer blows up". My personal opinion is that source should be included with freely-downloadable software to ensure that it can still be used in the future: if I were to stop development then my binaries would eventually stop working when an OS or hardware upgrade breaks things, but with the source freely available someone can recompile/fix them.

I'm a little baffled by the earlier claim that "[you] do not retain the right to modify published open source software" but that "You can contribute to the code base". If you can't modify it, then how can you contribute modifications? I'm not an expert, but as far as I'm aware the majority of popular open source licences expressly allow you to modify and redistribute as you see fit.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

I'm a little baffled by the earlier claim that "[you] do not retain the right to modify published open source software" but that "You can contribute to the code base". If you can't modify it, then how can you contribute modifications? I'm not an expert, but as far as I'm aware the majority of popular open source licences expressly allow you to modify and redistribute as you see fit.

Yup, that would go against the core principle of Open Source. Nothing stopping anyone to using a non-open-source restrictive licence and leaving their GitHub open. I think there is, in general, a bit of confusion as to what open source actually refers to.

But, saying that, the closest that could come to it is 'abuse' of creative commons and go against the recommended use and apply it to software. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode

 

[Akrapovic]

I'm a little baffled by the earlier claim that "[you] do not retain the right to modify published open source software" but that "You can contribute to the code base". If you can't modify it, then how can you contribute modifications? I'm not an expert, but as far as I'm aware the majority of popular open source licences expressly allow you to modify and redistribute as you see fit.

You are referencing me here, however you're doing so unfairly. My post was in reference to you saying the following:

The Web was always intended as an open platform. Google's proposal seems to be trying to authenticate that the browser hasn't been "tampered" with. How do you authenticate an open source piece of software? The end customer has the right to modify the browser as they see fit, and it should be none of the site's business whether the customer has done so.

Google authenticating a browser hasn't been tampered with is not the same as open source, anyone can contribute to the code base. "How do you authenticate open source software?" - the same way it's currently done. Using certificates, and developer accounts etc. Mac and Windows both currently do this. Google is just trying to do it sever side too. Brave, Chromium (not Chrome), Firefox are all open source browsers. However, it's also completely possible to check that these have not been tampered with.

"The end customer has the right to modify the browser as they see fit" - no they do not. For lots of reasons. Firstly, contributing the code base is not the same as you editing the browser on your machine only and then continuing to use it. When you contribute to open source software, there is still a team of people maintaining this, deciding what gets pulled into the application, deciding what gets published. That's not the same thing as you modifying it yourself and then using it. So lets be straight about what the idea of open source software actually is.

Secondly, Chrome is not open source. Chromium is open source. You can contribute to that code base if you wish (but, as discussed, your changes may be rejected), but Chrome, as published by Google, is not an open source project. So even if your incorrect stance of "I can modify whatever open source software I want" was true, Chrome does not fall under that.

What you can do with Chrome, regardless of whether its codebase is open source or not, is defined by the license. In Chromes case, its published as Freeware. In that case, there is no defined rules with it and you refer to the EULA (End User License Agreement). In Chromes case, that can be found here: https://chromeenterprise.google/terms/chrome-service-license-agreement/in/

That EULA contains the line -

Customer will not, and will not allow others to do any of the following unless required by law, or unless Google consents in writing: (i) adapt, alter, modify, decompile, translate, disassemble, or reverse engineer the Services, or any component thereof;

Publishing software (and the security around it - since that's what this topic is actually about) is much more complex than "open source means i can do whatever i want"

 

[MacBH928]

I'm a little baffled by the earlier claim that "[you] do not retain the right to modify published open source software" but that "You can contribute to the code base". If you can't modify it, then how can you contribute modifications? I'm not an expert, but as far as I'm aware the majority of popular open source licences expressly allow you to modify and redistribute as you see fit.

They welcome you to contribute to the open sourced software but not to fork it and redistribute it as another app. I am in favour of this method - sometimes- because without centralization chaos happens.

1 Office Suite that is compatible with all and have enough people behind it to be MS Office replacement, is better than 1000 Office Suites that none of them work correctly.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

They welcome you to contribute to the open sourced software but not to fork it and redistribute it as another app. I am in favour of this method - sometimes- because without centralization chaos happens.

1 Office Suite that is compatible with all and have enough people behind it to be MS Office replacement, is better than 1000 Office Suites that none of them work correctly.

And what is that open-source licence called? Can you link to the licence?

 

[Nermal]

You are referencing me here, however you're doing so unfairly. My post was in reference to you saying the following:


Google authenticating a browser hasn't been tampered with is not the same as open source, anyone can contribute to the code base. "How do you authenticate open source software?" - the same way it's currently done. Using certificates, and developer accounts etc. Mac and Windows both currently do this. Google is just trying to do it sever side too. Brave, Chromium (not Chrome), Firefox are all open source browsers. However, it's also completely possible to check that these have not been tampered with.

"The end customer has the right to modify the browser as they see fit" - no they do not. For lots of reasons. Firstly, contributing the code base is not the same as you editing the browser on your machine only and then continuing to use it. When you contribute to open source software, there is still a team of people maintaining this, deciding what gets pulled into the application, deciding what gets published. That's not the same thing as you modifying it yourself and then using it. So lets be straight about what the idea of open source software actually is.

Secondly, Chrome is not open source. Chromium is open source. You can contribute to that code base if you wish (but, as discussed, your changes may be rejected), but Chrome, as published by Google, is not an open source project. So even if your incorrect stance of "I can modify whatever open source software I want" was true, Chrome does not fall under that.

What you can do with Chrome, regardless of whether its codebase is open source or not, is defined by the license. In Chromes case, its published as Freeware. In that case, there is no defined rules with it and you refer to the EULA (End User License Agreement). In Chromes case, that can be found here: https://chromeenterprise.google/terms/chrome-service-license-agreement/in/

That EULA contains the line -



Publishing software (and the security around it - since that's what this topic is actually about) is much more complex than "open source means i can do whatever i want"

I think we might be misunderstanding each other a bit.

First of all, none of my posts were talking about a specific browser (and, as I understand it, Google's proposal is supposed to apply to all browsers). You've mentioned Chrome, but you're the first to mention it (or, indeed, any browser) by name in this discussion. As you say, Chrome itself isn't open source and therefore its restrictions are not entirely relevant here. Obviously we can't ignore it completely in the overall discussion about Google's proposal, but in the context of "checking" open source browsers we should be able to put it aside.

Some browsers do allow you to modify them as you see fit. For example, Gnome Web is relatively popular on Linux and it's covered under GPL, and my understanding is that this more-or-less says "you may modify and redistribute this, as long as your redistributed/modified versions stick to this same licence". I believe Firefox is similar.

You've mentioned certificates for authentication, but I'm not sure how this would work. Using a "true" open source browser as an example:

Scenario 1. When you download the source code, it comes with the required certificate. You build your own version of the browser, then you sign it using that certificate. Your modified version would therefore pass the certificate check, and at that point what's the purpose of having the certificate in the first place? Yes, it could work around "hacking" the binary, but is anyone actually going to do that if they have the original source?

Scenario 2. The source does not come with a certificate, and you need to get your own and sign it yourself. It will now, presumably, fail the certificate check. Yet the browser hasn't been "tampered" with: the changes that you've made are expressly permitted under the software licence.

There's probably a third scenario that I haven't thought of

 

[MacBH928]

And what is that open-source licence called? Can you link to the licence?

NASA Open Source Agreement I guess

 

[cyb3rdud3]

NASA Open Source Agreement I guess

A very unusual one And resulting in 0 results on GitHub; https://github.com/search?q=licence:nosa&type=repositories

Furthermore, looking at the licence wording, it doesn't apply the restrictions you suggest it does.

Do you want to try again with another open-source licence? Or perhaps now may be a good time to admit you had that one wrong, and we can just move on…

Look it is simple, no open-source licence would be recognised as an open-source licence with the restrictions you submitted. It is that simple.

 

[Akrapovic]

I think we might be misunderstanding each other a bit.

First of all, none of my posts were talking about a specific browser (and, as I understand it, Google's proposal is supposed to apply to all browsers). You've mentioned Chrome, but you're the first to mention it (or, indeed, any browser) by name in this discussion. As you say, Chrome itself isn't open source and therefore its restrictions are not entirely relevant here. Obviously we can't ignore it completely in the overall discussion about Google's proposal, but in the context of "checking" open source browsers we should be able to put it aside.

Some browsers do allow you to modify them as you see fit. For example, Gnome Web is relatively popular on Linux and it's covered under GPL, and my understanding is that this more-or-less says "you may modify and redistribute this, as long as your redistributed/modified versions stick to this same licence". I believe Firefox is similar.

You've mentioned certificates for authentication, but I'm not sure how this would work. Using a "true" open source browser as an example:

Scenario 1. When you download the source code, it comes with the required certificate. You build your own version of the browser, then you sign it using that certificate. Your modified version would therefore pass the certificate check, and at that point what's the purpose of having the certificate in the first place? Yes, it could work around "hacking" the binary, but is anyone actually going to do that if they have the original source?

Scenario 2. The source does not come with a certificate, and you need to get your own and sign it yourself. It will now, presumably, fail the certificate check. Yet the browser hasn't been "tampered" with: the changes that you've made are expressly permitted under the software licence.

There's probably a third scenario that I haven't thought of

You can't just download signing certs to published applications and sign it yourself. That literally defeats the point in it.

Firefox is published under its own MPL licenses and specifically states you can modify it and distribute it. Remember, however, that doesn't mean it comes up as a published and authorised version from Mozilla.

Also, you seem upset at Google authenticating browsers. Meanwhile, macOS (using Gatekepper) and Windows both do this for all applications. So I'm unsure where the negative here is?

And if it's as simple as you say, where you just download the code, change it, and publish it, including the certification signed by yourself, then Googles check doesn't mean anything anyway, so why are we unhappy with it?

 

[dmccloud]

And what is that open-source licence called? Can you link to the licence?

There's multiple versions of open-source licenses - go look up all of the Creative Commons variants for some background on that. You also have GPL, Apache, and others. Here's a few sites comparing various types of open source licenses.

Open Source Licenses

OpenSource.org

 

[millerj123]

There's multiple versions of open-source licenses - go look up all of the Creative Commons variants for some background on that. You also have GPL, Apache, and others. Here's a few sites comparing various types of open source licenses.

Open Source Licenses

OpenSource.org

I think you missed the point.

 

[Nermal]

You can't just download signing certs to published applications and sign it yourself. That literally defeats the point in it.

Firefox is published under its own MPL licenses and specifically states you can modify it and distribute it. Remember, however, that doesn't mean it comes up as a published and authorised version from Mozilla.

That's exactly why I'm wondering aloud about how this is all supposed to work, because I don't understand how it's possible to check something that's end-user modifiable for "tampering".

Also, you seem upset at Google authenticating browsers. Meanwhile, macOS (using Gatekepper) and Windows both do this for all applications. So I'm unsure where the negative here is?

There's a "continue anyway" option. It appears from the limited information available that Google's check will just go "nope" with no recourse, although I don't know for sure.

And if it's as simple as you say, where you just download the code, change it, and publish it, including the certification signed by yourself, then Googles check doesn't mean anything anyway, so why are we unhappy with it?

A little bit of "fear of the unknown" and a little bit of "Google has proven itself untrustworthy in the past".

 

[MacBH928]

A very unusual one And resulting in 0 results on GitHub; https://github.com/search?q=licence:nosa&type=repositories

Furthermore, looking at the licence wording, it doesn't apply the restrictions you suggest it does.

Do you want to try again with another open-source licence? Or perhaps now may be a good time to admit you had that one wrong, and we can just move on…

1-Whats wrong with it if its unusual? it exist

2-Why do you care that an open-source license already exists with such terms. You can write your own license if you want, so you are not restircted to the any already available license like you seem to imply

Look it is simple, no open-source licence would be recognised as an open-source licence with the restrictions you submitted. It is that simple.

There is a lot of confusion about terms in what is "open source" "free and open source" "source available"

Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation

www.gnu.org

Open Source and Open Source Software Are Not The Same Things

UPDATE: I have a follow-up post that addresses a few criticisms of this post.

haacked.com

Microsoft Gives Windows Source Code to Governments

www.itprotoday.com

Microsoft opens source code to governments

As foreign governments increasingly move to open-source software, Microsoft is making its source code a little more open to them.

www.computerworld.com

***
So if your main concern is the already available licenses thats another issue. If I would write software I am selling to the governments I wouldn't mind making the source publicly available as long as they pay me the money. If you want to say that you are not really "open source" unless you allow the modification and redistribution of the software without paying the original author, we can disagree on what the term "open source" refers to. This is why people use the term "FOSS" as in "FREE and Open Source" as in freedom of use over just "OSS" (What is Free Software?)

and if I am wrong, its ok and I am not scared to admit it, after all what is the point of a civilized conversation if one is not willing to change his opinion if corrected. Otherwise its just a screaming contest.

*************

EDIT: I have revised the NASA agreement, and you are right, the agreement does allow you to modify and redistribute the code as your own but I am not sure if they allow you to contribute back to it.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

There's multiple versions of open-source licenses - go look up all of the Creative Commons variants for some background on that. You also have GPL, Apache, and others. Here's a few sites comparing various types of open source licenses.

Open Source Licenses

OpenSource.org

Sorry but you have to totally missed the point I was making. @MacBH928 was making claims confidently that I had never seen or heard about before, and do seem to go against the principles of an open source license. So I was curious what this mythical open source license was he kept referring to. So far it doesn't see he can name it nor link to it.

1-Whats wrong with it if its unusual? it exist

Nothing wrong with it, did I say there is anything wrong with it? I like unusual. However, that license does NOT support the claims you've been making.

2-Why do you care that an open-source license already exists with such terms. You can write your own license if you want, so you are not restircted to the any already available license like you seem to imply

I only care as you are making bold claims with confidence, and I find it interesting as in all my years of experience in this field I've never come across it. I'm always looking to learn. I would have thought that considering you repeatedly stick to this point, you'd be able to name and link to it like that.

Yes, you could write your licence, you could even claim it's open source. However, with the claims you've made regarding the restrictions you'd want, the open-source initiative would be highly unlikely to give its stamp of agreement to it that it is compatible with the principles of what is open source. It's a bit like showing off your new hotel, but in fact it is a prison.

There is a lot of confusion about terms in what is "open source" "free and open source" "source available"

Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation

www.gnu.org

Open Source and Open Source Software Are Not The Same Things

UPDATE: I have a follow-up post that addresses a few criticisms of this post.

haacked.com

Microsoft Gives Windows Source Code to Governments

www.itprotoday.com

Microsoft opens source code to governments

As foreign governments increasingly move to open-source software, Microsoft is making its source code a little more open to them.

www.computerworld.com

***
So if your main concern is the already available licenses thats another issue. If I would write software I am selling to the governments I wouldn't mind making the source publicly available as long as they pay me the money. If you want to say that you are not really "open source" unless you allow the modification and redistribution of the software without paying the original author, we can disagree on what the term "open source" refers to. This is why people use the term "FOSS" as in "FREE and Open Source" as in freedom of use over just "OSS" (What is Free Software?)

No confusion on my part at all. That is why there is the stewardship of the Open Source Initiative organisation surrounding its definition.

and if I am wrong, its ok and I am not scared to admit it, after all what is the point of a civilized conversation if one is not willing to change his opinion if corrected. Otherwise its just a screaming contest.

Agreed, so once again. You've made bold claims, why not just name that open-source licence and link to it?

PS. I'm lost as to what this has to do with modern-day web design 🤣

 

[millerj123]

Sorry but you have to totally missed the point I was making. @MacBH928 was making claims confidently that I had never seen or heard about before, and do seem to go against the principles of an open source license. So I was curious what this mythical open source license was he kept referring to. So far it doesn't see he can name it nor link to it.

Nothing wrong with it, did I say there is anything wrong with it? I like unusual. However, that license does NOT support the claims you've been making.

I only care as you are making bold claims with confidence, and I find it interesting as in all my years of experience in this field I've never come across it. I'm always looking to learn. I would have thought that considering you repeatedly stick to this point, you'd be able to name and link to it like that.

Yes, you could write your licence, you could even claim it's open source. However, with the claims you've made regarding the restrictions you'd want, the open-source initiative would be highly unlikely to give its stamp of agreement to it that it is compatible with the principles of what is open source. It's a bit like showing off your new hotel, but in fact it is a prison.

No confusion on my part at all. That is why there is the stewardship of the Open Source Initiative organisation surrounding its definition.

Agreed, so once again. You've made bold claims, why not just name that open-source licence and link to it?

PS. I'm lost as to what this has to do with modern-day web design 🤣

I wish I could give this more than “double-plus-good”

 

[MacBH928]

Nothing wrong with it, did I say there is anything wrong with it? I like unusual. However, that license does NOT support the claims you've been making.

you are right

I only care as you are making bold claims with confidence, and I find it interesting as in all my years of experience in this field I've never come across it. I'm always looking to learn. I would have thought that considering you repeatedly stick to this point, you'd be able to name and link to it like that.

Agreed, so once again. You've made bold claims, why not just name that open-source licence and link to it?

For clarification reason, a go back to what happened in the thread:

Akrapovic said: You also do not retain the right to modify published open source software by default. You can contribute to the code base (this is the "open source" part of it), however the ability to modify the software legally falls under the publishing license. It has nothing to do with what open source is.

I said: What about forked ones? I think there is open source and then three is FREE and Open Source . I think the free means do whatever you want with it including modifying, republishing, and forking it.

Nermal said: I'm a little baffled by the earlier claim that "[you] do not retain the right to modify published open source software" but that "You can contribute to the code base". If you can't modify it, then how can you contribute modifications? I'm not an expert, but as far as I'm aware the majority of popular open source licences expressly allow you to modify and redistribute as you see fit.

I said: They welcome you to contribute to the open sourced software but not to fork it and redistribute it as another app. (I am making an excuse for why would someone want to go through the approach Akrapovic mentions not claim a license of such exist)

to which I replied to you: NASA Open Source Agreement I guess

Yes, you could write your licence, you could even claim it's open source. However, with the claims you've made regarding the restrictions you'd want, the open-source initiative would be highly unlikely to give its stamp of agreement to it that it is compatible with the principles of what is open source. It's a bit like showing off your new hotel, but in fact it is a prison.

No confusion on my part at all. That is why there is the stewardship of the Open Source Initiative organisation surrounding its definition.

I disagree a little bit with Open Source Initiative and FSF on open source. They promote the idea of "free" software, while this is all good and dandy personally all I care about in an open source software is the privacy part so I know nothing is funny going on in the background. FOSS needs funding for sustainability and people are simply not donating enough. FOSS software that reached enterprise or pro level are ones that either backed by sponsors (Debian) or sell the service like Red Hat and Bitwarden.

PS. I'm lost as to what this has to do with modern-day web design 🤣

its tied to Google's new website DRM thing, but I agree things have gone OOT but I do not want to ignore your responses (its impolite) nor would I want to run out of the conversation because I am wrong.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

you are right






For clarification reason, a go back to what happened in the thread:

Akrapovic said: You also do not retain the right to modify published open source software by default. You can contribute to the code base (this is the "open source" part of it), however the ability to modify the software legally falls under the publishing license. It has nothing to do with what open source is.

I said: What about forked ones? I think there is open source and then three is FREE and Open Source . I think the free means do whatever you want with it including modifying, republishing, and forking it.

Nermal said: I'm a little baffled by the earlier claim that "[you] do not retain the right to modify published open source software" but that "You can contribute to the code base". If you can't modify it, then how can you contribute modifications? I'm not an expert, but as far as I'm aware the majority of popular open source licences expressly allow you to modify and redistribute as you see fit.

I said: They welcome you to contribute to the open sourced software but not to fork it and redistribute it as another app. (I am making an excuse for why would someone want to go through the approach Akrapovic mentions not claim a license of such exist)

to which I replied to you: NASA Open Source Agreement I guess

Ok fair enough, I see your point that it started with a guess (in the literal sense opposed to the proverbial). 👍

Can we then agree that, that actually does not exist?

I disagree a little bit with Open Source Initiative and FSF on open source. They promote the idea of "free" software, while this is all good and dandy personally all I care about in an open source software is the privacy part so I know nothing is funny going on in the background.

This is where discussions can go seriously off the rails. Talking about open-source definitions, but then using your definition opposed to that of the ones who have the actual stewardship of such a definition because one doesn't agree with them. It is not smart to then still call it by that name.

Nobody is in disagreement that you can't make your own proprietary licence, not at all. Just don't refer to it as open source.

its tied to Google's new website DRM thing, but I agree things have gone OOT but I do not want to ignore your responses (its impolite) nor would I want to run out of the conversation because I am wrong.

And I thank you for a nice and adult conversation. I've learned to see your point and what you meant.

As long as the website DRM thing isn't following responsive design, looks like something from 30 years ago, and has no white but that Netscape grey background, then I'm sure the original posters who don't like present day web design, and its inclusive responsiveness are OK with it 🤣

 

[MacBH928]

Ok fair enough, I see your point that it started with a guess (in the literal sense opposed to the proverbial). 👍

Can we then agree that, that actually does not exist?

yes we can, indeed we do.

This is where discussions can go seriously off the rails. Talking about open-source definitions, but then using your definition opposed to that of the ones who have the actual stewardship of such a definition because one doesn't agree with them. It is not smart to then still call it by that name.

Nobody is in disagreement that you can't make your own proprietary licence, not at all. Just don't refer to it as open source.

I am not debating the term "open source" definition. I am just saying there is a possible spectrum from a locked proprietary to absolutely do whatever you want. I will not enforce my definition over theirs...especially not in this thread

And I thank you for a nice and adult conversation. I've learned to see your point and what you meant.

welcomed

As long as the website DRM thing isn't following responsive design, looks like something from 30 years ago, and has no white but that Netscape grey background, then I'm sure the original posters who don't like present day web design, and its inclusive responsiveness are OK with it 🤣

I am actually anti-bloat myself , just visited Playstation website and each image is as large as my 13inch macbook screen! Compare that to a 20 year old version

 

[Tozovac]

I am actually anti-bloat myself , just visited Playstation website and each image is as large as my 13inch macbook screen! Compare that to a 20 year old version

wow, the PS site is completely annoying to use, seems to be designed more to ”entertain” than inform. Way too vertical and on my 11 inch iPad Pro it’s laggy and stuttering to boot. The two-line menu at the top is unnecessarily confusing. Great example of some aspects awful website design. At least it’s mostly devoid of flat design, and the actionable buttons are pretty clear, so those are welcome basics every site should have.

 

[Tozovac]

As I've often said in this thread, many of my critiques of awful website design that started appearing sometime after 2013 also applied to apps & operating systems. Too much flat design, too monochromatic, too low-contrast, too many unnecessary new interface inventions, too much change for the sake of change in the name of blind adherence to to "new, modern appearance" at the sacrifice of function...the unnecessary eradication of borders defining neighboring areas. The monochromatic white-out for reasons of blending controls with the content to decrease 'user distraction'...cough, gag, puke. The "embarrassment" of using dropshadows and buttons that look like buttons...

As I predicted, these fads would eventually fade, and common sense would prevail.

Just saw a few recent updates to Microsoft Word for Mac.

Loving the quiet roar back towards interface details that just work. Shading...borders...anti-flat design...actionable buttons that look like buttons and therefore standout from "info only." The smart use of drop-shadows...

Yo go girl.

Jony, please keep keeping away.

 

[ghanwani]

So I need to vent about the way many apparel manufacturers (e.g. The North Face) design their websites. If they have 3 jacket styles, each offered in 12 colors, they get presented in random order. So you have to scroll to 36 items to discover that the only have 3 styles! What a waste of time and unnecessary complexity added to shopping. They could have just displayed 3 items and allow you to change the color on each by say flipping through the colors while on each item.

 

[ghanwani]

Another one about web design being awful --

Almost any store/brand website you visit now will have 3 annoying things pop up and literally obstruct the whole screen:
- Accept cookies (Can't you go anywhere on the web without cookies?)
- Get x% off for "joining the tribe" by providing your email (Why is everyone so desperate to get an email address?)
- A "Do you need help" chat window (Which of course 99% of the time there is either no one available to respond or the information that they are able to provide is useless which means wasted time should you ever fall for interacting with it.)