3 ms·

View the source of this page. Older web pages do a good job of reminding me that the most important part of a website is information dissemination, not flashy b

• cynwoody 12y ago
  Indeed. The page is refreshingly free of JS and CSS and weighs in at a measly 18.8 kb. But it would have been helpful to have included a full date. Somewhere? Anywhere. Even (especially!) the URL? Sheesh! A quick google indicates this took place in 1994, as indicated by this usenet post to rec.aviation.stories: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.aviation.stories/_Ohb4-f-H38 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.aviation.stories...
• keithpeter 12y ago
  And if you want a narrow column to make the text easier to read, you just resize or tile the browser window! My vanity site has html with very light css, no javascript. Works ok on Blackberry as well as laptop. Loads fast. All static so very small bandwidth/processor use (shared hosting). Emergency edits using ssh / nano. I'm wondering how much electricity we use serving and parsing all the presentation code with modern sites?
• colinramsay 12y ago
  A blog article on my personal site (for example [1]) pulls down ~13KB in a third of a second. It's also responsive and easier to read than the article link (IMO, obviously). It's a massive shame that older websites show off the regression of developers when it comes to page weight and bandwidth considerations, particular when it's not difficult to create a speedy yet attractive site [2]. [1] http://colinramsay.co.uk/2014/04/23/i-am-so-annoyed-about-rss.html http://colinramsay.co.uk/2014/04/23/i-am-so-annoyed-about-rs... [2] I'm not bigging up my own site here, just the general principle!