4 ms·

I really think you're forgetting what most web pages looked like back then. A simple background, often just one or two columns of text, a few images put in ther

I really think you're forgetting what most web pages looked like back then. A simple background, often just one or two columns of text, a few images put in there, some HTML links. Maybe frames for the more complex sites. Here's some popular pages from back then: Maddox's Page[1] Marathon Story Page[2] Both of these could be recreated by someone who had no previous knowledge of HTML after studying HTML for one or two days. And a lot of people's sites were even simpler - just text thrown up their with some images and links. But the thing is - people don't really need much more than that. Most Tweets, Blogs, articles, etc., are still just test and images when it comes down to it. The vehicle to deliver the content has gotten much more complex, but the content itself is usually (though not always) about the same as it was 30 years ago. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20021112205429/http://maddox.xmission.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20021112205429/http://maddox.xmi... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20000815234125/https://marathon.bungie.org/story/ https://web.archive.org/web/20000815234125/https://marathon....

asimpletune 2y ago
Yeah HTML5 + CSS3 were not a thing yet. They were one of the last missing pieces to the puzzle of solving desktop publishing. I think after all these things (rss, usenet, irc, html5, css3, etc...) the only thing left was search. I don't think a user friendly solution for search ever came along. The original algorithm was good enough, and if google wanted to be good at search I think they could have combatted set spam. The problem for search was always money.
rchaud 2y ago
Yeah, some sites were simple. Most sites people wanted to build required more sophisticated layouts, and thus began the great <table> age. Dreamweaver was a successful consumer product because of HTML and CSS' learning curve.

asimpletune 2y ago

Yeah HTML5 + CSS3 were not a thing yet. They were one of the last missing pieces to the puzzle of solving desktop publishing. I think after all these things (rss, usenet, irc, html5, css3, etc...) the only thing left was search. I don't think a user friendly solution for search ever came along. The original algorithm was good enough, and if google wanted to be good at search I think they could have combatted set spam. The problem for search was always money.

rchaud 2y ago

Yeah, some sites were simple. Most sites people wanted to build required more sophisticated layouts, and thus began the great <table> age. Dreamweaver was a successful consumer product because of HTML and CSS' learning curve.