3 ms·
Images were “bad” because browsers were all text based at the time. Adding images meant having to create a “graphical“ web browser ( wasteful in the minds of so
by LeFantome 4y ago
Images were “bad” because browsers were all text based at the time. Adding images meant having to create a “graphical“ web browser ( wasteful in the minds of some at the time ) and meant not being able to read all web pages with full fidelity with your text based browser of choice ( every single web user at the time ).
This was back in the days when people were using their terminal program in Windows to Telnet into the UNIX server at school / work to browse the web ( in text ) after all.
People using the World Wide Web were probably using things like Veronica and Gopher just as much.
Also, if you are connecting over a modem, images would slow things down.
I do not remember too much resistance though. Mosaic was a revolution ( literally ).
- avmich 4y agoEven basic HTML had several levels of headers, which were supposed to be shown differently - at least fonts, if not sizes. NeXT, which was used as the first web server, had graphical capabilities. Frankly, I'm not really sure there was significant push against images at all. Even with 2400 bps modems - some of the slowest at the time - images could be loaded, surely qualitatively slower than now, but still could.