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

All you may need is HTML

fabiensanglard.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 328 posts

Re: All you may need is HTML

#151

Post by galangalalgol »

agumonkey wrote: post #121
bombcar wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of http://motherfuckingwebsite.com and http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com But the key, underlying point to ALL this stuff is that you do NOT NEED TO WORRY ABOUT PRESENTATION until you have the CONTENT. A huge temptation is to spend hours and hours tweaking the presentation as a way of avoiding actually creating the content; this is the real danger. (should mention https://thebestmotherfucking.website of…

personally I miss the vanilla html of the late 90s (unless advanced guis) same went for emacs I stopped using themes

Yeah, I actually like the oldest of the three best. The one with 7 css declarations was annoying to me somehow and the third option was garbage. I miss websites that were about conveying information.

Re: All you may need is HTML

#152

Post by PaulHoule »

robertoandred wrote: post #123
PaulHoule wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is notorious for wanting to push people away from portable and easy-to-use web applications to non-portable, expensive to develop, and frequently worse mobile apps.

"Apple hates websites because I don't like Safari's default monospace font."

It’s more that they don’t put the high level of refinement into the web experience that they are famous for in their native (Mac/iOS) applications.

Though of course there are plenty of discontents with that. On balance I think the apps that ship with MacOS are much worse than their Windows counterparts. I think iOS on the iPad is truly superior but the settings app is dark pattern city, particularly the notification that never goes away about the Apple TV trial that is about to expire but actually expired years ago.

Re: All you may need is HTML

#154

Post by hathawsh »

newhotelowner wrote: post #150

I have been writing some puppeteer/node js scripts to download invoices/statements and to scrap some data from different vendors/service providers. (ATT, Spectrum, Gas, electric, etc). Pretty much all the sites are now a days single page or with tons of JavaScript with a lot of xhr requests. Those xhr requests are huge too. Loading screens everywhere. Some of the loading screens are 5-7 seconds long. And I have no lu…

Have you heard about the CFPB's move to require open banking? It seems like a step in the right direction. https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-kicks...

There are complications, naturally: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/banking-law/small-banks-urge-c...

Re: All you may need is HTML

#156

Post by 5350-uiop-1130 »

truculent wrote: post #18

I sympathise with the main thrust of the post but, to nitpick, this is just plain wrong: > But mostly css appeals to our vanity and ego. Design isn't just about aesthetics. Good information design, clear visual hierarchy, accessibility, etc. all help with communication. The author's effective use of spacing, bold, and code tags show us that they know this intuitively, despite what they write.

use css, just enough with the animations!

> scroll the mousewheel: giant footer section slides up taking half the viewport

> move the mouse cursor up: giant ass header slide menu drops down covering half the viewport

should be absolutely no motion on a page unless i specifically click on something, like play button or slide out button. and that includes parallax bullshit.

prefers-reduced-motion should be the DEFAULT not an override. ffs haven't we learnt anything in the last 20 years of web dev - you cant rely on web monkeys to build things right (\s).

---

and f*k you to whoever thought having mouse hover popup autoplay boxes on youtube was a good idea.

Re: All you may need is HTML

#157

Post by bombcar »

guiraldelli wrote: post #137
bombcar wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of http://motherfuckingwebsite.com and http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com But the key, underlying point to ALL this stuff is that you do NOT NEED TO WORRY ABOUT PRESENTATION until you have the CONTENT. A huge temptation is to spend hours and hours tweaking the presentation as a way of avoiding actually creating the content; this is the real danger. (should mention https://thebestmotherfucking.website of…

I was happy to see someone finally referred to the motherfucking websites. On the other hand, I was disappointed to see the unique one of those I think it is worth to follow the advice [1] was not cited. For curiosity reasons, I found out about [1] on a well-known website [2] that definitely puts content in front of presentation, even though I like their website's design. [1]: https://bestmotherfucking.website/ [2]:…

Heh I knew there were many but I couldn't remember them all, and the search terms around these are, shall we say, a bit dangerous.

Of all of them, I think the one you linked is probably the best. It is still interesting to watch the progression.

Re: All you may need is HTML

#158

Post by bombcar »

enriquto wrote: post #136
ryloric wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 7 fucking declarations. That's how much CSS it took to turn that grotesque pile of shit into this easy-to-read masterpiece. Such drastic difference with basic adjustments, damn

I honestly prefer the original version without css. Plain browser styles have a kind of raw beauty that it's very hard to surpass.

In my mind "raw browser" look corresponds with "almost insane details coming" as the only sites still using that are often run by people who are WAY more concerned with the content they want to talk about than with the presentation.

Re: All you may need is HTML

#159

Post by bdcravens »

truculent wrote: post #18

I sympathise with the main thrust of the post but, to nitpick, this is just plain wrong: > But mostly css appeals to our vanity and ego. Design isn't just about aesthetics. Good information design, clear visual hierarchy, accessibility, etc. all help with communication. The author's effective use of spacing, bold, and code tags show us that they know this intuitively, despite what they write.

Even one of the most non-style sites on the web, Craigslist, has a stylesheet.

Re: All you may need is HTML

#160

Post by kerkeslager »

magicalist wrote: post #97
kerkeslager wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that was what HTML was on track to give us. But once JS and CSS were introduced, semantic HTML that was actually semantic stopped developing, under the assumption that if someone needed, for example, a tab area or slide show, they could develop those themselves with CSS/JS. What we've gotten instead is extremely vague elements like "section" that don't communicate what the elements are . If HTML were truly sema…

This...does not match history. There was never a golden era like you describe (it was a time of conflicting philosophies, people saying "eh, let's add this, that would be sweet", and browser vendors competing to add as much as possible to out "innovate" each other and the limited specs), semantic HTML helps in some cases but is never going to give you automatic accessibility, and a one size fits all browser style is…

> This...does not match history.

I've been writing web code since 1997ish, so...

> There was never a golden era like you describe (it was a time of conflicting philosophies, people saying "eh, let's add this, that would be sweet", and browser vendors competing to add as much as possible to out "innovate" each other and the limited specs)

I did not describe a golden era of HTML, because a golden era of HTML never happened. Instead, it was precluded by the introduction of JS/CSS. Had JS and CSS never been invented, we might have achieved a golden era of HTML, but we would have needed web standards to mature before that could happen. What happened was, web standards did mature, but they matured to serve websites rather than users. As a result, mature web standards center around JS and CSS, leaving HTML anemic and weak.

What we have now is a time of conflicting philosophies, with websites competing to add as much as possible to out "innovate" each other. Users still suffer the same inconsistent interfaces they did in 1997, it's just that instead of browsers being inconsistent, it's websites that are inconsistent.

Post reply on HN