2 ms·
> Embedding images into the page was a killer feature for HTML I'd disagree slightly. Users did not have the high bandwidth always on connections then that th
by akira2501 2y ago
> Embedding images into the page was a killer feature for HTML
I'd disagree slightly. Users did not have the high bandwidth always on connections then that they do now. Images were nice but were also avoided as they made pages "slow". The main reason lightboxes and other clickable thumbnails came into existence.
> was still doggedly text based because they were still supporting the VT100 users
I used lynx and links for a very long time. What made me switch was the prevalence and ultimate utility of JavaScript. It turned simple pages that were best consumed after being fully downloaded into complete progressive applications.
- em-bee 2y agoUsers did not have the high bandwidth always on connections then that they do now users at universities did. i do remember this time as a student, early websites with small but colorful pictures and formatted text were clearly more appealing than gopher.
- giantrobot 2y ago> Images were nice but were also avoided as they made pages "slow". The main reason lightboxes and other clickable thumbnails came into existence. I first used the web in 1995 and websites definitely used inline images. The images were mostly small GIF images but they were definitely there. Every web authoring guide implored you to set explicit sizes on img tags so browsers wouldn't have to do a full repaint as images loaded. Modems weren't that slow in the mid-90s, 14.4k modems were common and 28.8k modems were starting to be the default OEM option.