4 ms·
I wonder if anyone here would agree to pay a small subscription fee, say $2/month, to get a text only version of websites. No to minimal images, no to almost mi
by car12 8y ago
I wonder if anyone here would agree to pay a small subscription fee, say $2/month, to get a text only version of websites. No to minimal images, no to almost minimal CSS flash/bloat/design. Pretty close to reading things on a newspaper.
- userbinator 8y agoGiven that browsers can already do that (CSS off, reading mode, etc.) I don't think that would be a popular idea. Usually it's "pay to get more content that wouldn't be accessible freely".
- supermw 8y agoI wouldn’t pay for that but I would pay a hell of a lot more than 2 a month to have all major websites I visit properly redesigned to render in terminal based browsers (such as links or w3m) as first class citizens without weird formatting bugs or UX.
- didgeoridoo 8y agoI might pay $5-10 one time for a browser plugin that intercepts requests and redirects me from the heavyweight versions to the lightweight ones on this list...
- cmroanirgo 8y agoWhat's wrong with the various reader modes that Safari and FF already have? They're great at de-formatting a page to it's base article. No cruft. It's very newspaper style. (Chrome has reader plugins that can doing this too) Not sure what your $2 would be doing another than adding an actor between me and the page I wish to read. For privacy purposes, I'll be keeping well clear of such "solutions".
- basch 8y agoDont you normally have to wait for the heavy site to load before switching to reader?