> I am ... not a programmer
which is obvious from your question ;)
Ask HN: Why don't websites have 'text only' backup versions?
21–30 of 63 posts
Re: Ask HN: Why don't websites have 'text only' backup versions?
#22As someone who lives without constant broadband and as someone who works with people who enjoy accessibility settings in software, I think the current web design trend you describe is disastrous.
It is an awful experience. Mobile data is often sketchy, but these bloated sites don't render a single thing until all the twenty tons of front end crap is downloaded, and all to view a tiny static chunk of text. But hey, they got to use react, a metric shit ton of the latest CSS wankery, and it is connected to every social meejia platform!
Re: Ask HN: Why don't websites have 'text only' backup versions?
#23From a dead user, Diti, whose sentiments match my own:
> To me, any website implementing good accessibility (http://www.w3.org/WAI/) is likely to be perfectly viewable and browsable per what you said. But most webmasters don't know about WAI.
I'd add "or don't care".
Re: Ask HN: Why don't websites have 'text only' backup versions?
#24It's cheaper to make a fancy box around a pinecone than to deliver a Fabrege egg. Content that stands on its own is harder than a flock of spinning googaws. That's why Facebook fills your feed with CandyCrush.
Re: Ask HN: Why don't websites have 'text only' backup versions?
#25> I am ... not a programmer which is obvious from your question ;)
So, the end user of the site has no say? They should be thankful they are even allowed to cast their eyes on such a technical masterpiece? Developer or not, people can spot a worrying trend of website "developers" who cannot develop - they just bolt bits and frameworks together without a consideration for the end users.
Re: Ask HN: Why don't websites have 'text only' backup versions?
#26Not the answer to the question, but that particular site is somewhat (a little of the text and one or two images) readable without the JavaScript if you turn the styles off. I've just tried it with JS, actually it's a very little of the whole content.
But then you have sites like Google Groups and some Blogger sites (though GMail used to work in lynx, though I haven't tried it recently).
Yes, Blogger and Google Groups are really annoying.
GMail still has a special "basic HTML" version. It behaves much better over the bandwidth limited or very remote connections. Even at my home, with otherwise high speed internet, as I had some transient transmission problems the "full" version wasn't usable, but HTML one worked.
At least GMail has the real "html-backup version" the OP asked for.
Re: Ask HN: Why don't websites have 'text only' backup versions?
#27This reminds me of the rarely-used print stylesheet[0]. In fact, the only place I've ever seen it in use is on websites run by the Dutch government (perhaps other governments do so too, but I've never needed to check them out). EDIT: A bit of online searching mainly shows people *complaining8 about print sheets, so perhaps I'm completely out of the loop and simply haven't printed anything in a long time. It's not muc…
print stylesheets can be a real pain in the ass to test properly.
at least before chrome web-inspector got the handy checkbox.
Re: Ask HN: Why don't websites have 'text only' backup versions?
#28To me, it seems almost as if the web dev is saying "if you don't have the latest, most up-to-date, most powerful device/whatever, then we don't want you looking at our ads". Seriously? I thought the idea of advertising was to get as many eyeballs as possible. That way of thinking seems so counter-productive to me, plus I can't imagine the advertiser being very happy with that approach. Thinking back to my days working in recording studios, we always mixed stuff in a way that it would sound good on both a giant audio system or a small, cheesy boom-box, with the idea that we wanted everyone who listens to have a good experience no matter what system they were using. I'm not quite sure why this methodology can't be applied here.
Re: Ask HN: Why don't websites have 'text only' backup versions?
#29As someone who lives without constant broadband and as someone who works with people who enjoy accessibility settings in software, I think the current web design trend you describe is disastrous.
It is an awful experience. Mobile data is often sketchy, but these bloated sites don't render a single thing until all the twenty tons of front end crap is downloaded, and all to view a tiny static chunk of text. But hey, they got to use react, a metric shit ton of the latest CSS wankery, and it is connected to every social meejia platform!
Silently downloading updates in the background is another frustrating trend. I've had data caps get blown not due to my actions, but due to updates.
I think good design should include designing for the those with impairments or those who don't live in a big city with uncapped broadband.
Re: Ask HN: Why don't websites have 'text only' backup versions?
#30Older Opera browser versions (and Firefox/Chrome with plugins) allow you to deactivate CSS. Then you see the website as you want it.