3 ms·

Hmm it depends what you call usable. Typically these web 1.0 geocities type site were not usable at all. I'm talking markees, spinning gifs all over the page, a

by keyle 4y ago

Hmm it depends what you call usable. Typically these web 1.0 geocities type site were not usable at all. I'm talking markees, spinning gifs all over the page, animated stars background, snowflakes over the content and questionable content organisation! I lived it, and I miss them for the nostalgia. Here is a very usable site, although the design of it is a bit lacking imho https://beta.w3.org https://beta.w3.org

Dalewyn 4y ago
That beta website is peak unusability. I have 1080 pixels of vertical screen real estate, why do I have to scroll down before I can see any worthwhile information? Why is so much space wasted on unrelated (WTF does LEGO and Macbooks have to do with W3C?), stock pictures? Why is the W3C logo both comically small and comically large and in the way? Why are news postings at the very bottom? Where the hell even is the search box? Why is everything a dropdown? Contrast the current website[1]: I don't have to scroll before I can see worthwhile information (the page is actually vertically shorter than the beta's). No space is wasted on unrelated, stock pictures. The W3C logo is appropriately sized and located both prominently and out of the way. News postings are front and center like they should be. The search box is clearly defined by borders and shading. All site navigation is immediately accessible with just one click. [1]: https://www.w3.org/ https://www.w3.org/
- illiarian 4y ago
  Great points! I opened an issue, but I don't expect much change: https://github.com/w3c/w3c-website/issues/301 https://github.com/w3c/w3c-website/issues/301
- th3row 4y ago
  Not to mention, the Globohomo / Dystopian Art, with the token non-white, token muslim woman and token Disabled Person.