Ask HN: Why Are Programmer Design Tastes So Utilitarian?

Hackers like flexibility and maintainability. Because we put so much of ourselves into what we use, frequently tinkering and modifying to remove frictions and inefficiencies, we want this to be easy and we want things to keep working for a long time.

You want design? We have design at home.

Oh wait, nevermind

I'd turn the question around and ask: why is there so much white space in pages made by liberal arts majors? Why do many people prefer 140 character tweets to reasoned articles? Could it be that programmers know how to read whereas people who didn't know how to read in college and had to study English to learn how to read still don't really know how to read or write?

Maybe some relevant models or perspectives to consider:

- "Dopamine Sucks" Model: The typical view on design, or even the typical a e s t h e t i c is overwhelming in this way or that, perhaps even at a biological level

- Preferring-informational-over-visual-design Model: We leverage information far more effectively than visual/sensory cues

- Fluff PTSD Model: In the past we learned to interpret social signaling cues and design cues (often the two are mixed in design processes) as Jedi mind tricks to cover up a lack of circumspect treatment of other cues that also matter. Show me the raw data plz (also seen on Wall Street)

- "Pro-emotional? More like Con-emotional" Model: Programmers sometimes prioritize information so much that they neglect emotions too long, and are left to recover their emotional bearings starting from a very dark place. Brutalism is, among other things, a symbol of a stark inner environment

- "Magnificent, My Nose" Model: We got used to having plain text dissed by really shallow people who refused to give our world more than a cursory glance. So we work to present it as a strength until others are forced to give us deference [1]

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFiLIsMieiQ

> attempt at readability

I find HN and other "brutalist" designs much more readable than most "pretty" layouts. I've had extended arguments with old school print people (as in, we were laying out columns on boards with tack wax) over the subject of column width and why did we even have columns at all?

My conclusion has been that most of those "design principles" about readability and so forth are religious tenets with no relation to the real world.

It's part of the hacker culture and values. "Hacker" in this case refers to the original definition of the term originating at the MIT Tech Model Railroad club:

http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/hackers.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tech_Model_Railroad_Club

http://www.paulgraham.com/gh.html

http://www.paulgraham.com/college.html

>> Where did this preference for plain text at the expense of all else come from anyway?

It stems from the clarity of text in communication and the use of textual formats and protocols in Unix and the early Internet.

http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s06.html

http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch05s01.html

It happens everywhere. It's all information, and it's all communication if it's moving from one body to another (whether that is their stated intent or not). The medium is the message [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message] —if you pay attention you can understand what is being communicated above the "raw data".

You're not required to follow suit.

That said, a bit of attention paid to colour contrast in the text content makes me believe you want me to read the words, at least. :)

It might be worth asking the question: what exactly are they trying to communicate with such a forceful utilitarianism and then plan your own actions accordingly.

Same reason hammer manufacturers don't put weird stuff on hammers. It's designed to do a task. Every animation, every extra menu level, every loading spinner, is a loss in productivity. Readability, discoverability, and other first-day concerns are completely gone after the first day of use, then it's 100% waste.

Because programmers usually don't know good UI/UX design, it's an entirely separate skillset. If they did, well, they'd be designers instead.

I'd consider readability to be paramount in any design described as utilitarian. HN is one of the most readable sites I visit.

UI/UX in software is a field which, to me, hasn't found it's feet yet. In physical architecture(buildings), there are common patterns recognized to be aesthetically pleasing and useful. Industrial design like the cockpit of a car has done the same. Most people recognize a door or a steering wheel instantly and can make use of them. I don't think these things have materialized yet in software. So if your goal is to create software for a specific purpose and you don't have the interest, time, or budget to solve this general design problem, you're just going to punt on it and make the UI basic and functional.

  > Funny, I find it quite hard to read, since it just blows posts out to nearly
  > full screen width.

  > Humans read much better with wraps at 60-80 characters. The
  > first line of your comment, on my screen, is 196.

      html {
        margin-left: 20vw; 
        margin-right: 20vw;
      }

Programmer Tastes fluctuate around while society recalls older tastes from movies/sitcoms/books; the net result is a passive positive-reinforcement feedback loop from prior art. Psychology has an entire branch studying these sorts of reality -> views -> reality -> views effect chains.

I'm convinced the brutalist, utilitarian designs originate with those of us who spend the most time close to their machines and originate from the needs of the _system_ before the needs of the _users_. As you move closer to end users there'll be more visual flair and ergonomic attention will move from favoring system ergonomics to favoring human ergonomics.

I can't help but feel like it's just sour grapes. Visuals are hard and if you can't hack them yourself they must not be worth it.

I think because much like a mechanics tool, when programmers make programs for themselves it's just that. A tool. You see the same thing happening with other disciplines. Commercial trucks aren't very pretty compared to cars. It's function over form.

The difference is very stark with computers because often times you'll see consumer grade software and software catered towards programmers that lean more towards tools existing in the same domain. Hackernews also isn't ugly, it's just simple. It works great on mobile and it's actually well done.

I prefer readability above all else and often perceive "design" as a gimmick to misdirect visitors/users.

Some seem to think minimalism contradicts UX, but they aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

> I don't think [a preference for very brutalist, utilitarian designs] happens quite as much in other fields, like architecture, cooking or construction.

One example in another field is automotive interface design. Specifically, how one selects a gear for the transmission, controls the temperature and entertainment systems, etc. Automakers have tried different things ranging from touchscreen control, to dials and other innovative ways to select a particular transmission gear. But there are people who prefer the classic interface choices like dials and levers to handle these functions because people have muscle memory and don't have to look at the control to determine what they need to do in order to use the controls effectively.

It looks better. Less clutter and mess. Utilitarian is a good term because a user interface ultimately is a utility. The type of interfaces you mention require no explanation to use, you don't have to think about how you do something, it is just obvious and typically being lightweight means less resource usage whether I am on cheap android-go or a fancy laptop that already has 500 tabs open.

Look at Linux desktop interface themes and design vs windows and macos. I want software that empowers meand gets out of my way, so my UX preferences follow suit.

Why play chess with ornate pieces, over simple wooden ones? Why don't professional chess players use those large sculpted sets?

Because chess isnt the pieces. The interface isnt the game. If you're attending to the interface, you're being distracted.

When you use computers as tools you don't want interfaces to appear as objects in the world, you want them to dissolve into the tool that they are.

The more I am "impressed" by a menu, button layout, interface, etc. the worse it is at being an interface.

The question is, rather, why do others want to be distracted by the interface? Why do they choose the oranate chess set?

Well, because they're consumers of computers, not users. They barely use them as tools, and so their default relationship to them is one of ornament.

An interface is, almost literally, ornamental to most people. Like a chess set on a mantlepiece.

Because "fancy" often gets in my way. It's like putting feathers on a rifle, and every time I pull the trigger the feathers mechanically flap in my face before the rifle fires.

When I'm using software I want to USE it, not look at it. Sure some basic aesthetics are fine, I have animated wallpaper on my desktop that I think looks nice and I have white/orange themed LEDs and custom-sleeved cables in my PC case. The difference is past initial setup those stay out of the way. My interfaces are stark, bare, and I can do more with 5 hotkeys than most regular users could do with a solid minute of mouse clicks.

> Because I don't think this happens quite as much in other fields, like architecture, cooking or construction.

Each of these is much more constrained than software - software you can draw anything on the screen. You can't turn up and say in a UX-calm voice, "we should try an A/B test on cars that are tall instead of long".

A website like HN isn't brutalist - you can't see the database or the wires or the inside of the computers working. You're just seeing the tiny, microns-thick veneer on the hidden host of complexity that goes into looking at a website. It has a decent font and decent but simple colours. I agree it doesn't have any pictures or video, but I that doesn't make it brutalist.

Because I add my own design. None of websites I see have original design, I use my own colors, fonts, hide some elements etc... Use Firefox in reader mode to get an idea.

Modern web design usually has horrible usability. Try to read modern web in brail terminal to get an idea. Or on GPRS connection (2G phone, 10kbps internet speed).

And I ensure you such trend is also in architecture, cooking etc.. Modern architecture often does not have basics like windows or daylight. Architect wants smooth facade, so people inside suffer... Modern cooking is preprocessed garbage, so even basic potato diet is better and so on...

I'll give you a different take. For most of my web applications, I am designing and building every single thing including all of the front end and backend and any database. It doesn't make sense for me to spend a bunch of time on the user interface before the software actually works.

Then once it's working, there is a fair amount of CSS tweaking just to get basic spacing and other things to look okay.

At that point, there are usually functional bugs to fix, one more feature I need, and two other projects I want to work on. Satisfying the latest design trends is usually a very low priority.

For my recent project aidev.codes, I actually used Bootstrap, which is not something I normally do. But AI helped me with class names and stuff.

I think it can be a vice (laziness) disguised as a virtue (efficiency).

Computers and software (like anything) can be beautiful, charming, fun, funny, tragic - anything we want them to be.

It’s not just software though - look at modern architecture, look at furniture, look at cars. Any sort of ornamentation or detail is verboten now. I think it’s the bean-counters’ fault, personally. Any effort/cost to deliver a little something extra would take money out of the wrong people’s pockets, so we do the bare minimum.

> Because I don't think this happens quite as much in other fields, like architecture, cooking or construction.

It may not be as obvious in architecture because of the time scales involved, but it has been trending in the same direction for decades and centuries.

First, I'd say this is changing massively. More and more of software is about good design and beautiful interfaces. Compare even a CLI app, something very much in the utilitarian vein, from the 2000's (git) and from the last few years (ripgrep). Git does not have any sort of usability concerns. The commands are named in confusing ways (git blame? git cherry-pick?), the default editor is vim which is its own usability nightmare, and the outputs are very plain with minimal color. Ripgrep uses color, has a pretty simple setup (type in the pattern to search it!), and really nice help docs. Same with fd vs find and other tools.

And if you look at websites, well Hacker News is the last of a dying breed of websites. There aren't many sites that look like this anymore. Indeed a lot of the "modern web dev suckssss" crowd are not the people who actually build websites. Or if they do, it's only personal ones where they can have full control. If you asked any front-end developer to design you a Hacker News clone, at the very least they would limit the line length and increase the font size. It's just the vocal minority who insist that sites like Hacker News are the pinnacle of web design.