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.

        • @NateNate60@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          22 years ago

          The Google front page is no longer plain HTML but apparently, they spent a lot of time optimising the logo so it could load in less than a second on a dial-up connection. It’s still remarkably plain when compared to other search engines though.

    • I saw a web page from 1999 today and as a full stack dev I immediately clicked away bc obvi NSFW

      BUT then I had the urge to go back to this simple ass web “site” and just admire it for a second like “wow, someone probably spent weeks on this 2 day design”.

      Tbh afterwards I was kind of in awe that every option was available on each page with no sidebars or extra clicks. Not slick but quick tho!

      • @MeanEYE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        22 years ago

        There was a design/development company which made sites and they bragged about making pixel perfect web sites. I can’t for the life of me find them again but I remember when I saw their portfolio it was like porn for web developers. Everything was done simply and with least amount of images possible, but it looked so good.

  • Endorkend
    link
    fedilink
    392 years ago

    Ignoring the security implications.

    There are literally none with basic html.

    It’s when you started adding shit like Shockwave, javascript and the like, all massive security holes, things got dicey.

    Plain old HTML, none what so ever.

    • @MeanEYE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      22 years ago

      Funny how sluggish browser feels on these old sites. I guess it would be obvious considering they try to optimize loading and rendering speeds based on trends and developer habits which didn’t exist back then, but still I would have thought simple HTML with monochrome background and very limited number of tags would load instantly.

  • @Nobody@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    25
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Find the right webring, and you’d hit a treasure trove of content. Dig a little deeper and find something even more interesting. The pre-corporate takeover internet.

    We talk about enshittification ruining everything, but Facebook and Web 2.0 started ripping out the heart of the internet. Everyone went along with it, and corporate claws sunk in. The fun internet got pushed aside for the ad-friendly internet.

    • @UsernameIsTooLon@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      52 years ago

      Oh, I just thought older websites were less secure. But I guess now that I think about it, you only got viruses if you clicked on the sketchy links yourself.

    • @UsernameIsTooLon@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      5
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      No need. As someone who understands web development enough to know I know nothing about web development, it makes sense to me why the internet is what it is today. It’s all about establishing a brand and identity now so doing extra things can make you stand out.

      While YouTube has gotten more sluggish over the years, I do think some recent changes like ambient mode have been pretty cool. I also support reasonable hardware requirements because things get obsolete over time.

      I guess I just miss the simplicity of early internet browsing more compared to all the bloat that exists today.

  • @folkrav@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    142 years ago

    I miss kb large old raw html websites that loaded instantly on DSL internet

    Instantly? We had very different DSL connections 😳

  • qyron
    link
    fedilink
    132 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
      link
      fedilink
      142 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
        link
        fedilink
        102 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
        link
        fedilink
        32 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
          link
          fedilink
          22 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.

      • @calzone_gigante@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        42 years ago

        I dont think that usability or acessibility gets so much in the way. It’s more about thinking webpages as applications instead of documents. Plain html is easier for screenreaders and larger fonts. You can also get responsive with very little css.

        Simplicity is just not the goal anymore.

      • qyron
        link
        fedilink
        12 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
            link
            fedilink
            22 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
                link
                fedilink
                12 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.

  • fernandu00
    link
    fedilink
    42 years ago

    Everything is a transpiled Rract SPA loaded with trackers …want to read your neighbors blog? Suck these hundreds trackers …