191–200 of 218 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, the good old days where guestbooks and webrings were commonplace. I remember it was an exciting time to be on the Internet. I felt far more connected to people's personal pages back then.
Anyone interested in starting a modern webring? I've wanted to move my blog content off Medium, but then no one would ever see it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Born in 89, I made a webpage for my mother at that time. She still likes it :/ Check the generator tag on the frameset page http://www.roswithavanderzander.de/index_EN.htm
This page is great. It loads instantly, shows you the content up front, has clear navigation, and has clear contrast between elements. Also, it has frames, which I honestly miss even though I am glad we have moved past them.
Born in 91, I was the perfect age to be obsessed with Harry Potter. When I was around ten, an older kid in the neighborhood helped me make a Harry Potter themed website using FrontPage (the Express version I think it was named). Small, random event that end up having a big effect on my life. My hobbies, what&where I chose to study, the friends I got there etc. I can trace back to this.
Man, look at that site. Unimaginably fast, works perfect on mobile, no clutter and readable. It truly has gone downhill since then.
From the article:
> I also like the load time estimation found in the bottom right corner -- that's a constant reminder how long it will take the page you're working on to load for your visitors. My resume page is pretty good on wait time -- 14 seconds and that includes a graphic in addition to a massive HTML file!
His "unimaginably fast" website took 14 seconds to load. Compare that to today's "bloated" sites like CNN's home page. Loads in 4.3 seconds, and finishes asynchronously loading all the bloat in 7.8 seconds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love how they laid it on the line. “If you want to do web development, you need to actually learn web technology” Now if someone would tell web developers that if you want to write desktop/mobile apps, you need to learn native frameworks..... What are newer FrontPage alternatives? The Internet and the web have changed drastically since the days when FrontPage was a very common website editor. Almost every modern we…
Don't forget the first program in this space: Adobe Pagemill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, the good old days where guestbooks and webrings were commonplace. I remember it was an exciting time to be on the Internet. I felt far more connected to people's personal pages back then.
I proudly proclaim to my younger cohorts that I was once in a Space Quest webring. I wear it like a badge of honor!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This article from The Verge[0] cites some support Tweets: - AirBnb[1]: "We'd always recommend that you use Google Chrome to browse the site: we've optimised things for this browser. Thanks." - Seamless[2]: "Safari is not a good browser to use with our website. Google Chrome work better with our website or you can download the app." - DirecTV Now[3] - IDAT solutions[4] (some random thing I found while searching) - Cou…
First of all: I agree that this is bad and that these developers should choose portable tech when building these sites. But as of now, Chrome is and has for a long time been the only browser to support: Shadow DOM: https://caniuse.com/#feat=shadowdomv1 Custom elements: https://caniuse.com/#feat=custom-elementsv1 CSS Paint API: https://caniuse.com/#feat=css-paint-api
That's been in Chrome for, like, less than a year - hardly a "long time". And the implementation leaked history spectacularly [0]. Rushing features out the door isn't necessarily something to be proud of.
[0] https://www.spinda.net/papers/smith-2018-revisited.pdf (see section 3.1)
You can say what you want but these were great times! Everyone could make their own little ugly homepage and it was exciting. People didn't really judge each other or bragged about how this tech is better than that. I kinda miss it.
Really? While I developed many sites in FrontPage, it was always looked down on by most people I knew. Many hosts outright refused to do full integration with it or run its extensions. The Generated HTML was far better than Word would generate, but it still was wonky unless you really knew what to avoid or were doing something incredibly simple.
Were we really that color blind back then or did we really have that poor taste?
The color palette was limited. 216 web-safe colors, 256 if you didn't mind the user's open programs changing how it looked.
Colors displayed differently on different monitors, and 'dead' areas of the screen, where colors would be less vibrant, were common.
And finally... The web was different, so we tossed all the rules. If you liked it, that's good enough! Why pander to anybody else? This was your own thing.