Author here: Sorry for not considering accessibility more. I use solarize everywhere - I’ll look into fixing the low contrast issue. As for whether my approach is correct from an SEO or HTML5 validation perspective - evidently not. But I do value the feedback and will take your comments into consideration when expanding my personal site. It’s still a WIP.
Next Gen Static Blogging
111–120 of 179 posts
Re: Next Gen Static Blogging
#112Your site is too hard to read on. Make the color of the font darker or the background lighter please. I had to copy to a notepad so I could read it. Edit: Apparently, dark mode users get this - https://i.imgur.com/5PHYac1.png I get this - https://i.imgur.com/5PHYac1.png Light mode is terrible, dark mode is okay. Please increase the contrast in both places.
You linked the same image twice. I'm curious what the other image was.
edit: nevermind, switched to dark mode using the dev tools. It looks like this just to be complete: https://i.imgur.com/qPv7guO.png
Re: Next Gen Static Blogging
#113Author here: Sorry for not considering accessibility more. I use solarize everywhere - I’ll look into fixing the low contrast issue. As for whether my approach is correct from an SEO or HTML5 validation perspective - evidently not. But I do value the feedback and will take your comments into consideration when expanding my personal site. It’s still a WIP.
You could also override the font-family of the main
to make it more readable; since it isn't code there's no need to use a monospace font. body code {
font-family: sans-serif;
}
Re: Next Gen Static Blogging
#114> The experience to writing this blog entry is very similar to using a dedicated word processor
Except for the fact that a word processor does more than break lines. For example, when you type ", your word processor will convert this to a left opening quote or a right closing quote based on context. But the " in this article are still ". I guess they could have used a word processor after all.
Re: Next Gen Static Blogging
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are almost right: The distribution of letters and length of words is similar to that of the Latin language. But it is not Latin and the text does not make sense. It's gibberish.
Those are Latin words, drawn from a Latin source. “Pencil what comma building twenty section human fedora” is English, even if it makes no sense.
The words are English words, but many would argue it's not an English sentence.
Re: Next Gen Static Blogging
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm ALWAYS looking for a more simple blogging solution. Why?
> Once you choose the technology that runs your blog, use it. Don’t replace it, ever. Never ever rewrite it.[1] [1] https://macwright.com/2019/02/06/how-to-blog.html
The antithesis of this is exactly why I asked the question. I was reminded of a tweet/post describing that most blogs have a single post: the one that describes how the author built their own static site generator/blog framework. After that, they are too tired/unmotivated to write anything else.
I was on WordPress. Now I’m on Jekyll. I occasionally think of changing the theme, then I remember how little that will benefit me or my few readers.
Re: Next Gen Static Blogging
#117I think it's a bit of a shame that this discussion has focused on the tech and (slightly odd) HTML choices here. Those are probably the least interesting parts of any discussion around what a "next gen" blog platform might look like.
Where the author is correct about next-gen blogging (in my opinion anyway) is in the attempt to reduce the friction to publishing a new post. What tech stack you use, whether it's static, what your HTML looks like, are all entirely secondary to whether or not you actually use your blog to build a corpus of content that shows off your opinions, expertise, and insights over time. That's what a blog is. It isn't HTML tags and CSS. It's the content within the tags. For me any next-gen blog tech has to make 3 things trivially easy -
- it needs to be simple to set up and maintain. If my laptop dies and I can't just clone my blog's repo and run a couple of commands to get back to where I was it won't work.
- it needs to be really simple to publish a post. Most blogs use Markdown with either front matter or a specific file path. That's OK but it puts most of the cognitive load on me. I'm sure there's a better way but I don't know what it is. I use 11ty for my blog which is very good, and if I didn't worry about URLs as much as I do it would be could actually work. But I do.
- there's nothing that pushes me to write more. This is the kicker, and no one has ever solved it. I think a blog platform that recommends posts I should write, and that praises me for writing, would drive me to actually write far more than I do. So far the only blog platform I've seen come close is Hashnode, but even that doesn't do it very well.
Re: Next Gen Static Blogging
#118I think it's a bit of a shame that this discussion has focused on the tech and (slightly odd) HTML choices here. Those are probably the least interesting parts of any discussion around what a "next gen" blog platform might look like. Where the author is correct about next-gen blogging (in my opinion anyway) is in the attempt to reduce the friction to publishing a new post. What tech stack you use, whether it's static…
For me, the power of a blogging platform is in automating boilerplate. This lacks:
- search - categories - RSS - archive pages - header/footer/navigation
It's great that the content area is simpler, but if I just typey-typey for the blog post and then have to manually create backlinks and the RSS feed item then forget it.
There is such a thing as _too_ simple.
Re: Next Gen Static Blogging
#119I think it's a bit of a shame that this discussion has focused on the tech and (slightly odd) HTML choices here. Those are probably the least interesting parts of any discussion around what a "next gen" blog platform might look like. Where the author is correct about next-gen blogging (in my opinion anyway) is in the attempt to reduce the friction to publishing a new post. What tech stack you use, whether it's static…
Author created static website where he manually links to each page and he claims this is 'next-gen' of blogging. You know what's next gen of blogging? Substack. You know why? It's because for most people rss is "hard" to use (mostly because they aren't familiar with it, thanks Google!), meanwhile everyone is familiar with email clients.
Author says: > Managing this blog is a little more involved than dynamically generating everything.
and
> Simplicity is key.
If he will blog for long enough that simplicity might become a technical debt. Right know this 'next-gen' blog doesn't even have an rss feed.
Re: Next Gen Static Blogging
#120It's funny that we've come full circle. The web had started with static web sites. Many of them had misused HTML tags to take shortcuts, and to achieve a certain look, including `
`, ``, etc. That had eventually caused so many compatibility issues that we thought malformed documents were a problem, so we defined a rigid structure for HTML called XHTML. We discovered the value of semantics and separated style from content with CSS. Then, we thought XHTML was too much work and just went back to loose style with HTML5 for ease of use. Then, people thought CSS was so much work that they applauded Tailwind for brining styling back into HTML. And three decades later, "next-gen static blogging" is about misusing HTML tags to take shortcuts, and to achieve a certain look. :)