3 ms·
Well written and beautifully presented but these are complaints about progress. > 'my limited needs...Simple, responsive layout' As we all know, limited/simpl
by factsaresacred 9y ago
Well written and beautifully presented but these are complaints about progress.
> 'my limited needs...Simple, responsive layout'
As we all know, limited/simple in the requirements doesn't mean simple to implement. "I want this page to look the same on any size screen, whether viewed horizontally or vertically". OK. It's surprising it's as simple as it is.
> 'I thought implementing webfonts was a relatively easy procedure, but I guess not!'
No, it is easy. If you want to read 90 pages of marketing-promo disguised as a guide to fonts, do so. But you don't have to. Go to google fonts, pick one, add the URL to the head of your webpage, done.
> We’re a long way from the CSS Zen Garden where I started.
That way is still there. It's just slow and messy. You can still inline your CSS, use external css files. Whatever you want.
> Before, the websites could explain themselves; now, someone needs to walk you through it.
Before, scrolling text and gifs were the cutting edge of web technology. Now we have Photoshop, online IDEs, real-time trading applications in the browser. This is magic. And magic isn't easy.
Furthermore, modern browser element inspectors provide an excellent explanation of what's happening on a webpage.
The web isn't static - as the browser advances we use new tools to handle the possibility as well as the complexity. But the old ways are still available. Although I'm not convinced that the 30 minutes of mental overhead getting to know npm and flexbox beats the mess of external resources, duplicate code and utter pain that was the web of the past.