3 ms·

How much sense does it make to use Gemini as compared to just keeping your HTTP implementation and your web pages markup as minimal as possible?

kubanczyk 3y ago
Readers don't need a heavy web browser at all. Even for a minimal html, everyone uses a different "minimal" subset.
asoneth 3y ago
No site is an island. Even if I keep my own website's implementation minimal I still end up interacting with the rest of the internet via web pages with less minimal markup. However, if you also had a like-minded community of similarly minimal websites, a mechanism to minify websites, search engines that prioritized minimal (or minifiable) websites, and a social convention of avoiding linking to any website unless it was minimal (or minifiable) then you'd end up with something like the Gemini community. In fact, I suspect something like that will supplant Gemini in practice. Browsers already have reader modes and some search engines allow you to block certain domains. I could easily imagine search engines or browsers providing greater end-user control over this sort of thing in the future.
- eterps 3y ago
  > search engines that prioritized minimal (or minifiable) websites I actually like that idea.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - krapp 3y ago
    A few have popped up on HN. The problem is, the quality of search results is often terrible, because the assumption that complexity of layout and density of information, much less relevance, are mutual opposites isn't valid.
    - asoneth 3y ago
      > the quality of search results is often terrible Having used a few, I agree there's room for improvement. > the assumption that complexity of layout and density of information, much less relevance, are mutual opposites isn't valid I agree, but has anyone claimed that there is a correlation between a page's complexity and the quality of its information? My experience has been that the folks who willingly disable javascript, use niche minimalist search engines and browsers, or otherwise prioritize a minimal ("smol") web experience are acutely aware that they are making a tradeoff. They sacrifice access to a significant fraction of the overall web including many high quality pages in exchange for a user experience they prefer. Like many who have tried it, I found the experience too limiting, but I appreciate what they're doing. If nothing else, their efforts are making the web better for people who rely on accessibility technology and are forced to make such tradeoffs.
- lolinder 3y ago
  > search engines that prioritized minimal (or minifiable) websites https://search.marginalia.nu https://search.marginalia.nu tries to be this, and is now being worked on full time by its creator.
  - seanw444 3y ago
    Also https://wiby.me https://wiby.me
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kazinator 3y ago
It matters to some people that their preferences are enforced by the tooling. How much sense does it make to switch to some immutable data structure or even a language with support for such rather than just not mutating the one you have? (Works for me.) There is a philosophy behind Gemini which is to fundamentally simplify the web, not jut individual web pages that opt-in.
zamadatix 3y ago
The idea behind Gemini is that it's useful to have a clean partition where you know the social "crowd" matches a specific type. For someone to use it they've gone and installed dedicated software which intentionally limits itself to what this crowd likes to engage in. This signals they are interested in the same kind of space. The utility of the dedicated software is not in providing some other level of convenience, it's separate strictly so the user "crowd" stays separate. Otherwise I could just register gemini:// as an aliased protocol of HTTP and it'd work in normal browsers or gemini clients all the same. If Chrome supported Gemini tomorrow a significant portion of the user base would stop using it. Of course that's unlikely, Gemini's trust-on-first-use security model is something unlikely to be added net-new to a consumer focused browser.
- The_Colonel 3y ago
  > This signals they are interested in the same kind of space. It appears to have achieved this goal to perfection, since most posts in gemini are about ... gemini.
reidrac 3y ago
Gemini also removes cookies, actual forms (there's a way to submit text, but not as a form), and any possibility of extending the protocol. It throws the baby with the water, a bit. Despite all that, it is still useful, but not enough to ignore all that it could have had but is missing.
whartung 3y ago
Indeed. What would it be like if websites were designed to "look good" using a text based browser, like Lynx? In the early days I used to use Lynx, and it was actually really good. It was always quite fast, easy to navigate around with the keyboard, able to zip through things like navigation menus quickly. Didn't work to well with image maps! (A thing back in the day), but it was a nice experience.
- nologic01 3y ago
  The endless dropdown menus people stuff websites with spoil the fun as there is no nice way to render that.
  - qwerty456127 3y ago
    If a menu is implemented in a semantically-correct markup a browser potentially can grab it and display in a sidebar.
    - nologic01 3y ago
      A modern TUI should be able to handle that nicely but not sure if Lynx is still being actively developed.

kubanczyk 3y ago

Readers don't need a heavy web browser at all. Even for a minimal html, everyone uses a different "minimal" subset.

asoneth 3y ago

No site is an island. Even if I keep my own website's implementation minimal I still end up interacting with the rest of the internet via web pages with less minimal markup. However, if you also had a like-minded community of similarly minimal websites, a mechanism to minify websites, search engines that prioritized minimal (or minifiable) websites, and a social convention of avoiding linking to any website unless it was minimal (or minifiable) then you'd end up with something like the Gemini community. In fact, I suspect something like that will supplant Gemini in practice. Browsers already have reader modes and some search engines allow you to block certain domains. I could easily imagine search engines or browsers providing greater end-user control over this sort of thing in the future.

eterps 3y ago
> search engines that prioritized minimal (or minifiable) websites I actually like that idea.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- krapp 3y ago
  A few have popped up on HN. The problem is, the quality of search results is often terrible, because the assumption that complexity of layout and density of information, much less relevance, are mutual opposites isn't valid.
  - asoneth 3y ago
    > the quality of search results is often terrible Having used a few, I agree there's room for improvement. > the assumption that complexity of layout and density of information, much less relevance, are mutual opposites isn't valid I agree, but has anyone claimed that there is a correlation between a page's complexity and the quality of its information? My experience has been that the folks who willingly disable javascript, use niche minimalist search engines and browsers, or otherwise prioritize a minimal ("smol") web experience are acutely aware that they are making a tradeoff. They sacrifice access to a significant fraction of the overall web including many high quality pages in exchange for a user experience they prefer. Like many who have tried it, I found the experience too limiting, but I appreciate what they're doing. If nothing else, their efforts are making the web better for people who rely on accessibility technology and are forced to make such tradeoffs.
lolinder 3y ago
> search engines that prioritized minimal (or minifiable) websites https://search.marginalia.nu https://search.marginalia.nu tries to be this, and is now being worked on full time by its creator.
- seanw444 3y ago
  Also https://wiby.me https://wiby.me

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

kazinator 3y ago

It matters to some people that their preferences are enforced by the tooling. How much sense does it make to switch to some immutable data structure or even a language with support for such rather than just not mutating the one you have? (Works for me.) There is a philosophy behind Gemini which is to fundamentally simplify the web, not jut individual web pages that opt-in.

zamadatix 3y ago

The idea behind Gemini is that it's useful to have a clean partition where you know the social "crowd" matches a specific type. For someone to use it they've gone and installed dedicated software which intentionally limits itself to what this crowd likes to engage in. This signals they are interested in the same kind of space. The utility of the dedicated software is not in providing some other level of convenience, it's separate strictly so the user "crowd" stays separate. Otherwise I could just register gemini:// as an aliased protocol of HTTP and it'd work in normal browsers or gemini clients all the same. If Chrome supported Gemini tomorrow a significant portion of the user base would stop using it. Of course that's unlikely, Gemini's trust-on-first-use security model is something unlikely to be added net-new to a consumer focused browser.

The_Colonel 3y ago
> This signals they are interested in the same kind of space. It appears to have achieved this goal to perfection, since most posts in gemini are about ... gemini.

reidrac 3y ago

Gemini also removes cookies, actual forms (there's a way to submit text, but not as a form), and any possibility of extending the protocol. It throws the baby with the water, a bit. Despite all that, it is still useful, but not enough to ignore all that it could have had but is missing.

whartung 3y ago

Indeed. What would it be like if websites were designed to "look good" using a text based browser, like Lynx? In the early days I used to use Lynx, and it was actually really good. It was always quite fast, easy to navigate around with the keyboard, able to zip through things like navigation menus quickly. Didn't work to well with image maps! (A thing back in the day), but it was a nice experience.

nologic01 3y ago
The endless dropdown menus people stuff websites with spoil the fun as there is no nice way to render that.
- qwerty456127 3y ago
  If a menu is implemented in a semantically-correct markup a browser potentially can grab it and display in a sidebar.
  - nologic01 3y ago
    A modern TUI should be able to handle that nicely but not sure if Lynx is still being actively developed.