Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tiny websites are great

tinyprojects.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 227 posts

Re: Tiny websites are great

#181

Post by chadlavi »

chownie wrote: post #150
robertlagrant wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why changing a title tag would require any code. Is it the framework or the code? (I don't know Vue, but this smells a bit.)

We had a similar scenario at my workplace, but with React rather than Vue. We wanted an internal component to be able to change the page title, which ended up with a project to transition to using react-helmet. It ended up taking a few weeks before this project completed.

Which is nuts, because you can also just write your own little one-liner to manipulate the title

```ts

const setTitle = (t: string): void => document.title = t

```

Re: Tiny websites are great

#182

Post by twic »

onion2k wrote: post #180
twic wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, you can't tell how long someone spent looking at page using just cookies. You can't distinguish between me (a) loading your page then immediately closing it, (b) loading it, reading it for ten seconds, then closing it, (c) loading it, reading it for ten minutes, then closing it, and (d) loading it, leaving the tab alone for ten minutes, reading it for ten minutes, then closing it. But it doesn't take 50 k…

You can't tell if I load a page and then walk away and spend 5 minutes making a cup of tea, and then come back and close the tab without looking at it either. Even with JS. Assuming that having a tab active and focused means a person is engaged with the page is false. Also, believing a page is better because I spend 10 minutes on it rather than 5 is nonsensical. Am I reading everything (good) or am I hunting around f…

You can measure scrolling and mouse movement and so on, which gives you clues as to whether someone is actually reading.

It's not like this data gives you an immediate and perfect readout of the user's entire brain, but it's not useless either.

Re: Tiny websites are great

#183

Post by rakoo »

StavrosK wrote: post #164
rakoo wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do agree that beyond the site being tiny, an important part of taking control back is to question the hosting part. The "traditional" web is, unfortunately, not fit for minimum hosting without either shelling out some money or depending on a third-party (however good it is). It is high time decentralized web alternatives gain adoption. How to host your tiny website with beaker ( https://beakerbrowser.com/ ) 1. Open…

You do need to keep your computer always[0] on, though. I don't mind depending on external companies, I mind depending on external companies that I can't pay to ensure their loyalty to me. [0] For varying values of "always".

There are levels to this:

- Beaker, like any decentralized web thingy, allows visitors to re-share content if they wish to do so. Integrity is provided through the crypto bits - There is of course the possibility to ask a third-party such as Hashbase (https://hashbase.io/) to host content for you. The difference with WWW hosting is that you don't depend on them to serve content at all times, only when you or your visitors can't; you aren't as dependent

Beyond self-hosting, the major differentiator is that the "web" goes further than just interlinking, it also contains safe distribution. Beaker does even more: foreign content is typically accessed through "mounting" other sites, just like you'd mount with FUSE, so an application doesn't really care where the content comes from. It's all files in the same virtual filesystem.

Re: Tiny websites are great

#184

Post by duckmysick »

onion2k wrote: post #180
twic wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, you can't tell how long someone spent looking at page using just cookies. You can't distinguish between me (a) loading your page then immediately closing it, (b) loading it, reading it for ten seconds, then closing it, (c) loading it, reading it for ten minutes, then closing it, and (d) loading it, leaving the tab alone for ten minutes, reading it for ten minutes, then closing it. But it doesn't take 50 k…

You can't tell if I load a page and then walk away and spend 5 minutes making a cup of tea, and then come back and close the tab without looking at it either. Even with JS. Assuming that having a tab active and focused means a person is engaged with the page is false. Also, believing a page is better because I spend 10 minutes on it rather than 5 is nonsensical. Am I reading everything (good) or am I hunting around f…

You can measure scroll depth and cursor activity. It gives you clues how the user interacted with the page.

Re: Tiny websites are great

#185

Post by SquareWheel »

Narann wrote: post #148
SquareWheel wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's nice to know if people are reading what you're putting out.

I have a (french) blog[1] having analytics for first years. I realize most page views where not necessary the ones I had the most fun at writing. It was sad to realize your next post would not necessary bring interest and you start to bring what you guess peoples would be interested in, and not what you are interested at in the first place. It breaks motivation on the long run. Like if you where no more blogging for…

I can appreciate that! I have some videos I've created that I've never once checked the view stats for. In that case, I'm just as happy not knowing.

Somehow I feel differently about articles I've posted, but to each his own.

Re: Tiny websites are great

#186

Post by blueridge »

ezequiel-garzon wrote: post #97
blueridge wrote: post #6

Yeah! I am with you on this. I've used nothing but HTML/CSS for all of my side projects for years. I manually create, update, and publish each page. Hell, I still drag and drop via FTP. It is indeed very fun. Here's a screenshot of my latest project, nothing fancy, just starting to tinker with Tufte CSS and typography (Lyon Text and Concourse): https://cln.sh/BzBD

Looks great! Why not a link to the actual website?

Thanks! There's nothing to show yet. No domain, no essays, no pages. Just an early work-in-progress.

Re: Tiny websites are great

#187

Post by onion2k »

twic wrote: post #182
onion2k wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't tell if I load a page and then walk away and spend 5 minutes making a cup of tea, and then come back and close the tab without looking at it either. Even with JS. Assuming that having a tab active and focused means a person is engaged with the page is false. Also, believing a page is better because I spend 10 minutes on it rather than 5 is nonsensical. Am I reading everything (good) or am I hunting around f…

You can measure scrolling and mouse movement and so on, which gives you clues as to whether someone is actually reading. It's not like this data gives you an immediate and perfect readout of the user's entire brain, but it's not useless either.

And that's when things get seriously invasive and people start saying "Why are you using a 26kb tracking script?"

If you collect information about how often a user is moving their mouse and scrolling the page in order to tell how long someone has been on a page then you've moved from collecting what's useful to collecting everything you can just in case it's useful. That decision comes at the cost of invading everyone's privacy, and that needs to stop.

Re: Tiny websites are great

#188

Post by codazoda »

cxr wrote: post #92
codazoda wrote: post #79

Most of the "small" designs and frameworks I've seen are quite large, in my mind. I just finished building a minimalist html/css template for some of my own projects. I'm starting to feel like this is some lost art form. https://neat.joeldare.com

Your `pre` elements are set to `overflow: scroll;`. You pretty much never really want that. (And it looks terrible on platforms that still have real scrollbars instead of the iOS-style overlay indicators that fade away. It should be `auto`. See https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visufx.html#propdef-overflow

I've updated this. Still looks the same on all my devices but hopefully it's an improvement for others. Thanks, again, for the tip.

Re: Tiny websites are great

#189

Post by cyrialize »

stavros wrote: post #16

I love this initiative in principle, but the instructions left a rather sour taste in my mouth. Create a Firebase app, download and install Node and run some arcane cli commands? For what? To upload a 10-byte HTML file somewhere? Please, do yourself and us a favour and sign up for a free account on https://neocities.org , and make a quirky website by hand for all of us to enjoy. I half want to write a post like this…

I do exactly what you recommend.

My website, https://cyrialize.dev/, is hosted on Neocities. I used jekyll to create it and I use water.css which I found on CSS Bed (https://www.cssbed.com/). The Neocities gem is VERY useful.

My process is super simple, it's basically:

- Make changes

- Commit & Push

- jekyll build

- neocities push _site/

Re: Tiny websites are great

#190

Post by ehonda »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #153
armyofbots wrote: post #94

If only there were a search engine for tiny websites.

If every tiny website linked to at least two other tiny web sites using something that a crawler could recognize it would be easy. Alternatively, is there a heuristic that reliably classifies websites in to tiny/not-tiny? How could we get this started?

you might want to try wiby.me
Post reply on HN