3 ms·
Your kind of proving my point. If you add these things in, it's more work. If you make a plain html site, which is what these sites should be doing, then you ar
by CaptSpify 10y ago
Your kind of proving my point. If you add these things in, it's more work. If you make a plain html site, which is what these sites should be doing, then you aren't going to add that stuff in, which means less work.
- hulahoof 10y agoI think you're forgetting content creators that aren't developers - although to be fair I don't see why you can't create an interface for the user that spits out / retroactively updates old pages/links/images. There is definitely a trade-off between ease-of-use and cost-of-use and I feel this gap is bridged by the content created by those who could not publish bare bones.
- CaptSpify 10y ago> I think you're forgetting content creators that aren't developers I don't understand what you mean by that. Content creators don't need to be developers for us to use simple, reliable systems. > There is definitely a trade-off between ease-of-use and cost-of-use and I feel this gap is bridged by the content created by those who could not publish bare bones. Yes, but I personally find the "ease of use" to be worse on heavy, slow, bulky sites. If content is "easier to use", then why are people constantly angry at slow, non-responsive interfaces? I see and feel this all the time, yet it's somehow "easier to use"? I don't see people complain when sites are fast, responsive and simple. Everyone's top complaint is that their computer/phone is "soooo slooow". Why is this, when we have extremely fast computers?