Here's the thing, that website doesn't actually efficiently communicate as well as you think it does.
Information hierarchies have a bunch of channels to get the reader to understand what's important and what's not. Text size, color, motion, placement, rotation, contrast, images, etc. all contribute to drawing the eye to key pieces of information.
The link you presented is simple, yes, but the information hierarchy is nearly flat. It presents all the information as equally important by reducing the channels for information transmission it uses.
Our eyes focus on certain details because we have monkey brains that have been trained to pattern match certain things.
It's a field of study that has research to back it up. It's great you find that link legible, but most people would not. Even most developers would find it helpful to tweak whitespace, use headers, and layout the content a little more structured to improve legibility.
Most of the UX studies are subjectivism dressed as objectivism.
The entire field is like nutrition or fitness, 90% of it is bogus and made up. None of these studies have proper controlled experiments while still trying to appear as authoritative.
No one takes a step back and realize that physical books are an interface and so is your kitchen. Photons hitting your eyeballs have no clue if it came from a computer monitor or the world around you. Organizing visual information is far deeper than these "UI/UX" experts.
I'm sorry, you just don't know what you are talking about. This is a widely studied area in human computer interaction both academically and informally.
I don't understand the infatuation with obscure irrelevant studies to make a point. None of these are remotely relevant to the page in question. Linking to sources isn't a way to escape basic common sense scrunity.
Basic common sense says the site has poor visual hierarchy. These links in the past several posts have been to highlight that the common sense understanding is that it has poor visual hierarchy.
The basic scrutiny agrees with me, and the sources are to help provide both subjective and objective reference that shows that, yes, the common person would prefer a more structured layout.
None of those back up your assertions about the linked website, which has very clear information hierarchy. Category nav links at the top. Key topic links in a list and sublists (how's that for hierarchy?). The information hierarchy is easy to see and navigate, much unlike modern websites which mislead the reader with a lot of irrelevant images and layouts.
That's not my point. I am responding to OP that if we don't care about dated/ugly/not-unique/fashion/medium-of-expression/art/etc, then inxi website does the job better than the template.
That’s not all that functional. The only two links I clicked, changelog and cli options, are just copy and pasted as preformated text that scrolls horizontally.
Putting zero thought behind UX isn’t the pinnacle of UX despite what we celebrate on HN.
To some extent, the majority determines what is utilitarian. Once Bootstrap achieved mass familiarity, it became utilitarian -- because almost everyone knows how to interact with it, the flow, the location of the information.
I checked out the site you shared -- it is indeed utilitarian...but it is also unfamiliar and hence to me, it makes it more difficult to find the required information at a glance.
while I agree with you in theory, As a business operator, i'd rather win the customer than win the academic debate.
If you have your business website look like that then you are gonna lose a lot of customers before they even start reading. It looks like it's from the 90s
If you're talking about a business that needs to market to customers through a website; I agree with you.
But I thought OP is talking about efficient communication which I what I responded to. Every comment response is completely misunderstanding where I am coming from.
The template in the article is exact opposite. It conveys bloat, unoriginality and impedes efficient communication of information.