4 ms·

> For apps we have apps That's the other extreme, which is even worse. I'm happy the web has evolved from simple http/css web pages.

KozmoNau7 9y ago
I wouldn't mind going back to the simple web pages of yesteryear, stuff you can write in a simple text editor. Black text on a white background, blue underlined hyperlinks that turn purple when visited, simple formatting that respects your browser's default fonts and pages that degrade gracefully to slow connections and low-resolution devices. HTML is for content, not styling. Even Hacker News feels a little bit too fancy with its threaded discussions and such, but it is by far one of the best sites today, in the Web 2.0 quagmire of needlessly active content and out-of-control styling. This is about as fancy as I want a website to be: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3194/2830673252_16c7bf336e_o.png http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3194/2830673252_16c7bf336e_o.... https://d3ui957tjb5bqd.cloudfront.net/uploads/2016/07/popular-90s-websites-004.jpg https://d3ui957tjb5bqd.cloudfront.net/uploads/2016/07/popula...
- DamonHD 9y ago
  I have written all most all my Web sites and their pages with vi since the start (for me some time ~1993 commercially and connected to the live non-academic Internet, before that at uni), though I have just now started to play with CSS seriously. Wouldn't want to rush it. (There is some JSP stuff, but most of that is still plain HTML with stuff dropped in strategically.) I like being able to deliver all the useful information content in the initcwnd for the HTML, and have a page weight of generally << 100kB (ignoring ads). http://m.earth.org.uk/ http://m.earth.org.uk/ http://m.earth.org.uk/note-on-site-technicals.html http://m.earth.org.uk/note-on-site-technicals.html I honestly don't know if my pages suck for normal humans to use, maybe I should worry more about that...
  - KozmoNau7 9y ago
    No, they absolutely do not suck. They're beautifully functional basic HTML, straight-forward with no excessive fluff :-)
    - DamonHD 9y ago
      \o/
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

KozmoNau7 9y ago

I wouldn't mind going back to the simple web pages of yesteryear, stuff you can write in a simple text editor. Black text on a white background, blue underlined hyperlinks that turn purple when visited, simple formatting that respects your browser's default fonts and pages that degrade gracefully to slow connections and low-resolution devices. HTML is for content, not styling. Even Hacker News feels a little bit too fancy with its threaded discussions and such, but it is by far one of the best sites today, in the Web 2.0 quagmire of needlessly active content and out-of-control styling. This is about as fancy as I want a website to be: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3194/2830673252_16c7bf336e_o.png http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3194/2830673252_16c7bf336e_o.... https://d3ui957tjb5bqd.cloudfront.net/uploads/2016/07/popular-90s-websites-004.jpg https://d3ui957tjb5bqd.cloudfront.net/uploads/2016/07/popula...

DamonHD 9y ago
I have written all most all my Web sites and their pages with vi since the start (for me some time ~1993 commercially and connected to the live non-academic Internet, before that at uni), though I have just now started to play with CSS seriously. Wouldn't want to rush it. (There is some JSP stuff, but most of that is still plain HTML with stuff dropped in strategically.) I like being able to deliver all the useful information content in the initcwnd for the HTML, and have a page weight of generally << 100kB (ignoring ads). http://m.earth.org.uk/ http://m.earth.org.uk/ http://m.earth.org.uk/note-on-site-technicals.html http://m.earth.org.uk/note-on-site-technicals.html I honestly don't know if my pages suck for normal humans to use, maybe I should worry more about that...
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  No, they absolutely do not suck. They're beautifully functional basic HTML, straight-forward with no excessive fluff :-)
  - DamonHD 9y ago
    \o/
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]