Ignoring the security implications, I miss kb large old raw html websites that loaded instantly on DSL internet. Nowadays shit is too fancy because hardware allows that, but I feel we’re just constantly running into more bugs first and then worry about them later.

Edit: I’ve thought more about it, and I think I just missed the simplicity of the internet back then. There’s just too much bloat these days with ad trackers and misinformation. I kinda forgot just how bright and eye jarring most old UIs were lol.

  • qyron
    14•2 years ago

    What would stop an individual or company nowadays to build a pure html website? Isn’t this what a “static site” is?

    Isn’t this what HUGO and Jekyll produce, only a little bit prettier?

    • slazer2au
      13•2 years ago

      Nothing. Warren Buffetts company Berkshire Hathaway has the most simple business’s site of all time.

      https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/

      The fault is a combination of execs wanting a slick site, marketing wanting a highly SEO scoring page, and Devs wanting to play with web frameworks.

      • @NateNate60@lemmy.ml
        11•2 years ago

        Hey, they even have an old-school tracker-free static advertisement image on that page. Now that’s a classic.

      • @griD@feddit.de
        3•2 years ago

        Table-based layout, that shit is ancient. We used to build websites this way >20years ago ^^ Mainly because IE was too stupid for anything else.

        • @MeanEYE@lemmy.world
          2•2 years ago

          I distinctly remember when designers got a hard on for rounded corners and IE couldn’t render them. So we ended up making a 9 cell table for each element that was suppose to have rounded corners and loaded images which repeated themselves. Indulging IE users, which were plenty, was such a pain.

      • qyron
        1•2 years ago

        So essentially what you are saying is getting in between people and smaller, simpler and faster loading sites is convinience and other people?

          • qyron
            2•2 years ago

            I don’t have any real knowledge of html but I have a vague memory about reading an article where it was mentioned there was a very simple way for a website to “ask” what was the available resolution and fit itself to it in human friendly format.

            When comes to manually zooming in or out - especially when on a smartphone - on a webpage, I admit I prefer it. It had a very short learning curve and it transmits a cleaner feeling of interacting with the website instead of having whatever it may be running behind the scenes shifting and adjusting the focus to some random point I have no interest on.

              • qyron
                1•2 years ago

                You mention wikipedia and that is one site where regardless being essentialy text, pages can take immense time to load.

                I respect the efforts to make things more accessible but there is the feeling that much more effort goes towards fluff and eye-candy than real, tangible, improvement.