Styling the links, giving it a proper header, dividing it more properly into sections, and that will look infinitely better and still work equally well on all screens. The site is a good idea, making it looks like a real project by giving it at least craigslist level of design will take half a day and increase the appeal a lot. And visitors like won't have to check whether the css just did not load before writing a comment like this ;)
Op, if you'd like some help with that, shoot me a mail (in profile).
With all respect: I completely disagree. I think this looks great as is. Dividing it up, adding a bunch of extra CSS would make it less usable and readable for me. Of course, that tends to be subjective.
The site is already divided into three sections: header, controls to the left, laptop list to the right. To style that accordingly won't make it in any way less useable or readable. Making the header look like a header would not affect you negatively in any way, or properly styling the pagination, or giving it a color scheme (even one based on white as background).
Really, this is a Show HN. Let's at least try to give OP proper feedback without resorting to head-in-the-sand subjectivity like that. "I'd prefer to have it look like my site I created for geocities with Frontpage" is not what will help OP presenting this to a potential employer, or making it a viable source of income.
To be fair, I can't. I'm basing it on how I see your suggestions in my head. But the way I interpret the changes are how I've seen other sites do it, and it just sounds worse to me. I don't like extra styling, as it ends up cluttering the display. I personally find color-schemes annoying. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd have to see how OP implements your suggestions before actually deciding.
> Really, this is a Show HN. Let's at least try to give OP proper feedback without resorting to head-in-the-sand subjectivity like that. "I'd prefer to have it look like my site I created for geocities with Frontpage" is not what will help OP presenting this to a potential employer, or making it a viable source of income.
I think you really need to take a breath here. I am giving OP proper feedback, which just happens to disagree with yours. Neither style is "right". They are both subjective preferences. I'm saying that I like the style he chose, and disagree with the "improvements" that you are suggesting. I fail to see how I'm sticking my head in the sand.
I would argue that keeping it simple is helping him. It makes the site more usable, less cluttered, faster to load, less maintenance and more easily navigable.
Maybe. You see, I hesitated after writing this, but then decided to stick with it. Just because I really am convinced that it is really bad advice. Based on my own sites (and pc-kombo.de is even in a related field), if you don't get the design at least near of being okay, people won't accept your site. Based on my studies, I know that usability does not get worse when giving it a proper design. And readability can simply (well, sometimes it's not that simple) be measured, but there is no reason at all it would get worse by doing the basics.
There is a small subset of people (socialized with another internet?) who really think the design of a site does not matter for them, or who disapprove of everything they think is modern design. Based on your comments, you are in that category. And some others commented in the same spirit here. Listening to those means making a site which 99% of internet users won't accept. At least as long as your site is not craigslist – but even current craigslist has more design than what I see on OPs site.
Not having a design is perfectly fine for a MVP. But not fine when going further. Stating otherwise actively hurts his chances of succeeding.
I'm not against modern design, I'm against over-design. IME sites work better and are more maintainable the simpler they are. If a design improves a site, then by all means, make it more usable. But to me, function > design, and I don't see how your suggestions would make the site better. I'm not saying you are objectively wrong, I'm just saying that I'd much rather use this site than pc-kombo.de or other overly-designed sites that take functionality away on the premise of "looking nice".
What are you talking about? Webdesign has never been about taking functionality away. I'm talking about separating page elements more properly, setting a link color, maybe setting a fitting background color, making sure elements stay big enough on a small screen, thinking about a logo for creating an identity, and having a look at the typography. How would any of this relate to negatively to the function of such a site?
That you think pc-kombo.de is overly designed I take as a compliment. Just saying, the design gave me the idea of adding the arrows at the side of the boxes, and gave a good place for the advanced menu, as well as the box control button for dismissing elements. It helped give users more functionality, more control over the site and their recommendations.
> Webdesign has never been about taking functionality away.
Now I feel like we're not even speaking the same language. Some of the current trends in webdev are no advanced options, no configuration settings, preventing urls from setting state, etc. I think most of these have great intentions, but they do reduce functionality.
I'm just saying that, in general, I don't like the colors, extra elements, logos, etc. That's all clutter IMO that doesn't make sites less functional, but adds unnecessary cruft to them. I think this site is fine as is and doesn't need that extra stuff. If you think it does, then great! I'm glad you suggested it. I just disagree with you.
All it would really take IMO is picking a nice colour for the links to give the site some kind of recognisable brand/theme/personality. Perhaps move the other text away from pure black to decrease the contrast slightly.
It doesn't look great on an android phone, though. And (possibly because of the missing viewport setting) I get crazy "let me zoom that for you" behaviour when I try to click on things.
Comparing Firefox to Chrome on Android (Galaxy S7 Edge), I find Chrome works better.
In Firefox, the results section is too wide, resulting in text that is either too small to read or that requires left-right scrolling. However, the filter section smart-zooms nicely and is easy to click.
In Chrome, the results section is wrapped and of legible size and is easy to skim through by scrolling vertically. However, there is a vertical strip of missing pixels at the left, such that the number 10 on the last result is missing its numeral 1 and part of its 0. The filter section smart-zooms nicely and is easy to click.
In both, it would be nice to lose the underscoring on the links (a pet peeve of mine, fixed with a user style sheet on my laptop).
Now I have to assume you are trolling. On a mobile phone (tested on an android with FF), you need to zoom to read any text that is not a headline properly. And there is no way that pagination is clickable without zooming in directly on it. Google is saying the same: https://search.google.com/search-console/mobile-friendly?id=....
Why would I troll about that? It looks a little small but otherwise OK to me. I can click on the pagination just fine. There are a lot of variables, especially with android when it comes to screen size, font, etc, so I'm guessing it just comes down to that.
I'm really not trying to just be argumentative, but if you'd just look at the stylesheet you'd see it doesn't come down to that. There is no real attempt to give a good experience in a mobile context. And when it comes to basic responsive typography, there really aren't that many variables at all. Whether a screen is 320, 435, 515 wide, etc - a single query context could serve all those needs.
I'm not trying to be argumentative either, I'm just confused as to why I'm being told my experience is objectively wrong?
Maybe he's not trying to cater to a mobile context, I don't know his intentions. I am just expressing my opinion that I think the site is great and doesn't need any more styling. It works fine on my phone, yet somehow that means I'm trolling? Not sure what more you want me to say?
Up voted as well. I just purchased an a6500 after quite the back and forth with myself.
Fuji actually uses Sony sensors. So the XPro2 / XT2 has the exact same sensor as a a6300 and a6500. So on paper, the Sony have a lot more going for them in terms of price to features. It should be really interesting to see what kind of pressure that puts on them.
That's not to say that the Sony's are better cameras. Fuji has a great glass selection, has arguably better ergonomics, but is also slightly larger and heavier. Fuji is a great camera company no doubt.
Overall, in the APS-C format, the offerings are pretty comparable across a wide range of price points.
Edit: Sony does not have the exact same sensor as the Fuji. Fuji's X-Trans sensor doesn't use a Bayer array. But Fuji's sensor is made by Sony.
No experience with their laptops. I can speak to their customer service, and it is absolutely fantastic. If you find a machine that works for you, I could not recommend them as a company more.
Everything listed on the site under "Credential Hero Protects Your Employees' Information" was my initial thought.
Since you've asked I suspect that you are only looking for email addresses and these are simply examples of data that could be associated with a leaked address.
https://basketballmonster.com/ for projections (terrible website, but really good). Don't have much information on their approach, but the common wisdom for NBA is to project fantasy points per minute and then predict how many minutes each player will get. Factors also include pace (how many possessions each team will get) and DVP (defense vs position).
https://www.fantasycruncher.com/ lineup optimizer and scripting auto-entry. Also has a really nice free feature called "Lineup Rewind" that you can use to "back test" previously days/weeks data.
Fantasy Cruncher comes with their own projections, but I didn't use them; you can import the BasketballMonster projections into the tool instead.
Thanks for this, I actually read your comment the other day, and it slipped my mind as I wrote it this morning. I've added an edited section about manipulation, with a link to this comment.
Which is a double whammy considering all of the other ways schools crush enthusiasm and willingness to explore. Because grades are a measure of "achievement" that discourages people from exploring new subjects or taking challenging courses outside their comfort zone, since that could lower their GPA. And because all course work factors into your grade, not just your ultimate competency in the material, that creates even more incentives to not try anything new. Struggling with new material for even a week or two could irreparably harm your GPA.
