And more than that, if you disagree, don't pretend to ask for a citation, just explain why you disagree. Most likely, even if you can't admit it, you'll find that you don't disagree, you are just misinterpreting.

In this case, the statement is

- an opinion based on experience

- obviously true

- coupled with an example anyways

In addition, the statement is relative, allowing for successful designs that are flat. So examples of readable flat designs are irrelevant to the truth of the statement.

You probably received down votes because "citation needed" is lazy, uninformative, uninteresting, and, in this case, wrong.

Sure, I could have provided this clarification earlier, but I have already conceded that the original comment was snarky and lacking in context for such a short statement.

And to your specific comments:

>Are you really asking for a citation to a controlled study that measures readability of a flat and not flat designs?

Are you suggesting that this isn't testable? I guarantee Microsoft and others have tested it. If the author isn't prepared to provide data, then it should be presented as an opinion.

"I believe that..."

> - obviously true

If it is obviously true, then there must be data to back it, right?

>In addition, the statement is relative, allowing for successful designs that are flat. So examples of readable flat designs are irrelevant to the truth of the statement.

My point was in regards to this particular statement, which, in my opinion, is stated as a truth:

>Put everything on the same plane, and you make it harder to focus on a specific section of the page.

I've agreed in later comments that you can take "content over chrome" too far in UI design, but this statement is NOT necessarily true in regards to content existing on the same plane. Putting everything on the same plane does not mean that it is harder to focus on a specific section of the page. Poorly designed websites are hard to read, regardless of what plane the content exists. I merely pointed out that there are examples that do not fit this viewpoint. In fact, I would argue that these examples tend to be the most readable designs I've seen, but this is an opinion that I have, so I have made sure to clarify it merely as that: an opinion.

As I've posted below, I am tired of people posting articles or blogs (and others upvoting these posts) that are not backed by any data.

If something is posted as an opinion, then I agree that it doesn't need a citation. Unfortunately, there is a reoccurring theme that I've seen become more and more prevalent in the tech community, a theme where ideas are pushed as truths when the author has done nothing to show that there is actual, credible, merit to the conclusions that have been drawn.

If these ideas were presented in any academic circle without evidence, they would be disregarded and laughed at. Yet here we are, discussing a post with a +200 upvote count, and the author has done little to prove his or her point, besides cherry pick examples that suit his or her conclusions. Content existing on another plane MAY improve readability, but I cannot say for certain. But I can point out that there are some very readable websites that have their content and navigation exist all one one page.

I think we can all agree that bad design leads to bad readability. And content existing on the same plane isn't inherently bad design. Proper use of whitespace and good typography can go a long way to improving readability and the UX. See Bing results http://www.bing.com/search?q=hello+world&go=&qs=n... (although I'm not a big fan of their social sidebar, but the results page and the top level navigation, is in my opinion, very usable)

So why should anyone accept this presentation of ideas that are not prefaced with the fact that they are an opinion and are not backed by any data? Why is it snarky to ask for evidence of these ideas, yet in academia it is normal and encouraged to be skeptical? If I presented an idea to my boss, his first question would be where is the data to support this? If I proposed an idea to my advisor, he would ask why do I believe this and what is the supporting evidence for this claim.

Why are these types of posts continually upvoted? Is it because we want agree with the author's idea? Is it because others have already upvoted this, so therefore the author is probably right? I honestly do not understand. It isn't like it is impossible to test this.

And "citation needed" is the Hacker News equivalent of YouTube comments: snarky, doesn't bring anything to the debate, and totally irrelevant.

My point is you are stating your opinion as if it is a truth, when it isn't.

Sure, citation needed is a little snarky, but I disagree that it doesn't bring anything to the debate and is irrelevant. Maybe you could have pointed to usability studies, so there would at least be some data to back up your claim.

Svtble works because it takes a minimalist's approach to all of that, throwing it all away into the bin. The content is readable because it's almost the only thing on the page. The font is large and the content is centered.

But would that work in the general case, as an approach for user interfaces and search engines and the modern day portal page and so on? I can't think of any examples there that would be considered "good design".

http://www.bing.com/search?q=hello+world&go=&qs=n...

DF (http://daringfireball.net/) even has site index which is another no no from a flat deign perspective.

PS: Notice how both of these changes make the sight less user friendly?

Snarkily requesting evidence is not a bad quality in an online community—it's a vital one. Stating things as facts and refusing to even attempt to provide evidence is a bad quality.

If you claim that flat interfaces are more difficult to use, and someone else claims the opposite, how do you each attempt to justify your positions? Do you compete to see who can more quickly compare their opponents to YouTube commenters, or do you simply cite some evidence to corroborate your position?

"Citation needed" is never a counter-argument, but often stands in place of one. It is the rhetorical equivalent of burying your opponent in discovery: it is a challenge that consists solely of expecting someone else to do more work than they would like to.

If you have a question about something, ask. If you disagree with something, then make your argument. Never simply post "citation needed" and think that you have contributed anything to a discussion.

(Just FYI, it's also a "tell" -- some people will avoid engaging you if you post nothing more than "citation needed", just as some people avoid engaging others that end every sentence with "lol".)

If someone's going to make extraordinary claims, I'm going to request extraordinary evidence (or any evidence at all). It's even possible that I'm interested in the proposition and would like to pursue it further, but with the benefit of a bit of directed guidance from the author to a specific starting point. And if it's an absolute bullshit claim, well then, the onus is on the bullshitter to back themselves up (trivially done if they're not bullshitting), not on me to spend my time digging up countervailing evidence.

Citation: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2008/01/extraordinary-c.h...

If you're actually interested in a claim and you need help finding further information about it, then say so. And if you think it's obvious bullshit, then say so by pointing out why.

"Citation needed" is a meme. First it was just a good practice on Wikipedia, then Randall Munroe made a comic with it (http://xkcd.com/285/), and then because lots of geeks like xkcd and it was political season the joke spread everywhere, and now, just like every other stupid meme, it is old and boring and misused and needs to be put out of its misery.

It's "lol" for pretentious people.

How about: I (honestly) don't believe "putting stuff on one plane makes them difficult to read", nor had I ever any trouble with understanding flat interfaces. So how can we reconcile our opinions? You assert a general statement, I have a counterexample (i.e. myself) that seems to go against it.

You can't assert general statements without supporting evidence and expect people to believe you just like that. You can either mark it as opinion ("I believe ..."), or expect to hear requests for citations.

Yes, "citation needed" is a meme. Yes, it came from xkcd, which is so popular among geeks[0] not only because it's funny, but mostly because it's smart and accurate. It's not just another web comic out there.

> just like every other stupid meme, it is old and boring and misused and needs to be put out of its misery.

I'm sorry you say that. You see, you are in the Internet right now. It's an another world inside the real world. What you call "stupid", "old and boring and misused" memes are - for better or worse - the cultural and historical heritage of this place. They are equivalent to proverbs or adages of real world. You cannot get rid of them, they are product of culture.

[0] - and especially HN crowd; just search for "Relevant xkcd" or "Obligatory xkcd".

In the case of user interface analysis, I thought most of us agreed that real data is much more important than a single user's anecdote. If someone makes the anecdotal claim that since they dislike a certain UI feature it must perform worse in general, that person needs to present actual evidence. Unless I have done my own research, the only thing I can do is request evidence and remain skeptical until I see some. It is equally fallacious for me to counter with my own anecdotal evidence. Saying "citation needed" is precisely the appropriate response to baseless claims.

Citing a study is not a panacea for bad ideas, and lacking citations is not a death sentence for truth. Hacker News saw an article just the other day on how many conclusions drawn by science are incorrect. Don't be so eager to avoid thinking critically that the presence or absence of a citation dictates your response to an essay.

There is nothing to think about when there is no evidence, except how to gather or find reliable evidence. No amount of solitary mental rumination will yield a revelation about how effective certain UI features are with users. My own anecdotes are just as useless as my opponents'. This isn't laziness. I'm not being lazy when I ask accusers to provide some evidence that someone is in fact a witch.

And sure, the scientific community may be out of date or downright wrong, even half of the time. That's not an argument against the need for evidence. It's an argument for thoughtful analysis of evidence after it is presented, and more and better techniques for gathering evidence.

I did think about the statement, and I thought it was untrue. Then I asked for evidence to support the claim. Is that intellectually lazy, or is the original post intellectually lazy?

Regardless, 5-10 minutes after I posted "citation needed," I backed it up with examples, and followed up on subthreads with more points.

Don't you think it's boring? Don't you think there might be a better way of asking a question about a claim than merely throwing down "citation needed" after a comment, like an e-peen on the dinner table?

Now that I have replied with a comment lacking a single claim, preventing another stupid use of "citation needed", do you see how ridiculous and twisted that vapid phrase could make conversation in forums full of silly^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlike this one? Should we all begin using Platonic dialogues just so that we can avoid having to bring a database of references along for any claim, lest we get molested yet again by people so intellectually lazy that they hilariously refer to themselves as "scientific skeptics" despite lacking the curiosity to research a claim on their own?

edit: Bah, I can't put quotes around "citation needed" in the search link above, and I don't feel like fixing the parsing for %codes tonight. You'll have to put the quotes in yourself to get the appropriate results.

Not really, and that's not the point of the statement. Until there is evidence, the only thing to discuss are your own predictions of what the evidence would show, or your own useless anecdotes. The point of the statement is to challenge the claimant to provide evidence, and as a side effect, to remind other readers to be skeptical of claims until they see evidence.

Sure, it might be boring, especially relative to baseless assertions that make a complex problem sound easy. Again, staving boredom is not the goal of most conversations—for that I turn to cinema or video games. Witch trials, while unscientific and horrifying, were certainly not boring.

Feel free to do that in your mind if you want to, this way it won't bother other people.

"citation needed" is an apt response if something is presented as fact, without backing it up it's not relevant for arguments, which are clearly presented as opinion.

It doesn't really matter how outlandish an opinion is, but if you make assertions and present them as fact, then you better be prepared to back them up with evidence.

>Put everything on the same plane, and you make it harder to focus on a specific section of the page.

How does a person draw a conclusion then without any evidence? Seems like confirmation bias to me.

>Get rid of all texture, and you might end up with cold, sterile designs that scare users away.

What's the point of making such statements that do not seem to be drawn from actual real world experience or data? Great, you have an opinion backed by what exactly? A personal emotional response to such designs? Do you actually avoid such designs? What is the value in making statements that have no backing data?

Did or does anyone say that Google's design might alienate users? It has always been one of the most sterile designs of any search engine or portal.

When people on the news make such statements, we laugh at them because we know they are just making these comments to get hits or views. They are trying to create controversy or lead people to agreeing with them when there is no evidence to back it up. It is analogous to fear mongering.

My biggest beef is people upvoting these types of posts. These posts are basically just piggybacking on general sentiments on Hacker News. Sure, at first glance, people tend to agree with them (see the +200 upvote count), and writing them may get the author some minor publicity, but when you attack them critically, you see they are not founded on any strong evidence. They are intellectually lazy posts.

And it isn't just you, it's all of the tech community that does it, and I am tired of it.

It's not that the article is wrong per se, it's that it states some fairly obvious ideas that are true in a broad sense (e.g. a user needs some visual guidance to make sense of a page; designing for looks at the expense of function is a Bad Thing) while being horridly weak in the details and specific examples.

Since there's little substance to the article it mainly serves as a kind of flag for taste preferences. People agree or disagree with the general sentiment, but when pressed to explain why most can't. I think this is why there was a such a reaction to "citation needed"; the annoying realization that one's opinions are merely anecdotal observations with no ready means of objective verification.

The question (perhaps rhetorically) was asked if posting "citation needed" ever lead to a worthwhile follow-up discussion. I'm thinking probably not.

Anecdotal observation: It's occurred to me that when people make obviously non-personal assertions, and they have some backing evidence, they tend to post it with their comment. If you don't see the citation it's likely because the poster hasn't any, and asking for it will be met with silence (or possibly derisive dismissal of the idea of being asked for evidence).

I attribute this to people asking for supporting links often enough that many posters think it's expected of them. I would like to think this is true.

If you said the world was flat, and someone asked for evidence, would you also ask that where is your evidence that you need evidence?

Thank you, thank you, thank you for giving me such a beautiful piece of clay to work with.

If I said, "the world is flat!", and it was around 400 BC, you, being an educated fellow, might say, "but what do you make of Pythagoras then?"

If I said, "the world is flat!", and it was circa 100 BC, you, being a clever and worldly fellow, might say, "but what do you make of Eratosthenes then?"

If I said, "the world is flat!", and it was the 1400s and you were friends with sailors or were yourself a sailor, you might say, "well, then why do the sails appear before the ship on the horizon?"

If I said, "the world is flat!" and it was the 1600s, you would think I was an idiot, because by now Magellan's voyage was well known and trade had begun to circle the globe, so you might just bite your thumb at me or ignore me.

But if I say, "the world is flat!" and you say, "citation needed", that is the stupidest possible "skeptical" response.

See, I'm not saying it's wrong to ask for a citation for a questionable claim. I'm saying that we should do better than that -- a request which you are arguing so vehemently against that, by now, if you actually were interested in whether or not "the design can be flat!", you could have come up with some examples to argue with.

Every time you, or anyone, says merely "citation needed" without further thought or consideration or argument or inquiry or contradictory evidence, what you are actually doing is holding an enormously loud sign which says, "I am not smart or curious enough to ask you a good question about this, but I am suspicious of it anyway."

And that's really lame.

If you are claiming something, than the burden is on you to provide us with evidence. Not on us.

And, in case of your example, "citation needed" is the most valid answer in XXI century, when your claim goes against all common scientific knowledge. Saying anything more is not intellectual laziness, it's a waste of energy. Burden of proof, again, lies on you.

It is clearly a subjective, editorial piece. The infantile demands that every statement be prefaced by "In my opinion, " (where such is painfully obvious already) is a nonsensical tactic when someone simply disagrees with the subject matter.

My eyes keep getting distracted by the elements in the top left and right corner of the page.

With both of them, it isn't obvious what will happen if they are pressed. To me, it feels exactly what the author of this article was dismissing - design for design's sake, which make the site less usable than if they'd made it clear what they do.

The second problem is, that there's almost no visual distinction / contrast between the main segments of the page, which makes it harder to process mentally. It's like a file manager that shows the filesystem as a flat list of files instead of as a hierarchy of folders. My first impression of the new Reader or Gmail design was - messy bunch of black texts on white or almost-white background plus some almost invisible gray lines and a weird red button. It just seems messy and structureless.

Svbtle or HN are different, they have much simpler top level structure - just a menu and a list of items. BTW, svbtle's design is superior to Reader's on multiple level's.

This isn't about readability, but rather usability, so I find your examples poor. It's not just about typography and whitespace. Yes, they are simple and on the "same visual plane", but they follow design patterns that have existed on the web for many years: Navigation placement is on the top and left, links are either underlined or highlighted. On the other hand, svbtle is using bizarre navigation visual cues at the top which need some level of inspection or trust to use, and medium doesn't have a standard navigation at all. They are designing away elements of the webpage that people are familiar with.