6 ms·
Right after a comment I realized #3 or perhaps #1 Most popular sites won't adopt the simpler web even if they can afford to do 2 version of their site, even if
by tmd83 6y ago
Right after a comment I realized #3 or perhaps #1
Most popular sites won't adopt the simpler web even if they can afford to do 2 version of their site, even if users like it. Because the lighter web most certainly will be worse for ads and tracking.
- ghayes 6y agoFWIW, check out CNN's light page [0]. It's an amazing experience for a text-only page that loads blazingly fast. [0] http://lite.cnn.com/en http://lite.cnn.com/en
- vikiomega9 6y agoBrilliant. There should be some way to incentivize lite pages, even if only for news websites.
- tux1968 6y agoUsing them instead of the main page is a good start.
- DarthGhandi 6y agoWow, that's such a pleasant experience for a news site.
- acjones8 6y agoIf you like CNN's, also check out NPR's and CSM's pages! VoA also has a Gopher mirror and an RSS feed with actual content instead of just a link. I'm still looking for more text only sites like these, but so far these 4 cover general news pretty well.
- mofeien 6y agoMaybe the right approach (feature creep beware) would be to bundle this lite web standard tightly with a pay per view API or some other monetary distribution scheme for web content. Each of the two standards might not receive enough attention on their own, but they complement each other: getting rid of the necessity of ads means going lite is an option for website owners, and the lite web will allow for many different lite web clients (that might finance itself through in-app ads shown to the user). In combination these two might overcome some threshold and gain traction!
- Aeolun 6y agoI think any version of a simpler web would still be 100% compatible with the full version of the web. So you’d really only need to build one version.
- jefftk 6y agoPerhaps AMP? A declarative specification for websites that is fully backwards compatible with the traditional web via a JS runtime.