4 ms·
I thought this is a historical site posted for some nostalgia value. Is this actually a website from 2013? Wow.
by runn1ng 13y ago
I thought this is a historical site posted for some nostalgia value.
Is this actually a website from 2013? Wow.
- gojomo 13y agoThere's a certain no-BS authenticity about sites which choose this aesthetic, that I and many others appreciate. But you raise a good point, that the look can also make people think they're seeing an old site, which lacks current utility and fresh updates. So a suggestion to the creator (and others choosing this spartan sensibility): balance the plainness with some other prominent indicators of freshness. This might include "last updated" dates, including the year, in prominent places. And, even where info is not changed for years – because it remains valid – add other indicators that it's still current. (This might be a "Reviewed" or "Valid through" date that's never more than a few months old.)
- xtc 13y agoThere's a guide for optimizing dial up performance. It seems a tad dated.
- jorgecastillo 13y agoAs far as I could tell this site was last updated on 2007 but most of the information on that site is timeless.
- ctogden 13y agoI've been on LINFO before and wondered the same thing. But actually, it appears to have last been updated in 2007 (see http://www.linfo.org/additions.html http://www.linfo.org/additions.html). No matter, the site was still quite useful.
- ekianjo 13y agoI was not sure if this was from 2013 either, since the date at the bottom of the page shows 2007.
- Amadou 13y agoI am pretty sure it is from 2007. Pages are dynamically generated so http last modified date is not helpful. But, the home page refers to the root definition as being the most recently updated page and at the bottom of that, it says "Updated October 27, 2007." http://www.linfo.org/root.html http://www.linfo.org/root.html