Earlier quoted context omitted.
almost gasp like a book.
Who reads books with no tables, graphs, images, or maps? ;)
My immediate thought was The Machinist's Handbook or a similar publication for chemistry that is pretty much all tables.
All you may need is HTML
241–250 of 328 posts
Re: All you may need is HTML
#242Re: All you may need is HTML
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, there was a previous garbage area, when HTML was, rather than being semantic, laid out using tables and \ and \ . I remember telling people to not do that, especially when the first version of CSS came out, and you could make websites look nice with semantic HTML that also worked in Lynx.
Table layouts are still superior to CSS in that they achieve the Holy Grail layout. As far as I'm aware, CSS still fails to achieve the Holy Grail within any reasonable realm of effort. Hell, the entire reason the internet moved from Holy Grail layouts to singular sidebar and vertically integrated layouts was because CSS can't into Holy Grail. With how wide most users' monitors are ever since 16:9 became commonplace,…
This doesn't add up. CSS grid, flex box, etc all do the "holy grail" layout with a couple lines. The tables mess that was early www was and remains an absolute mess of markdown to maintain for layout. Semantics and accessibility are practically out the window with table.
HCI dictates how humans use interfaces and with that comes many defacto reasons why a plain text page does not solve the problems users want to solve. Do you not think websites test into the optimal performing layouts and content distribution? If it worked better, we'd all be using it (it doesn't).
Re: All you may need is HTML
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Um, shouldn't all people be WAY more concerned with the content than the presentation? I don't want to read stream of consciousness with occasional lack of spaces and random case, but I'd really prefer to only read websites by people who give zero effs to presentation, and I had prior to this moment assumed everyone agreed, but that it was fun to do presentation, so people did. There are people who care about the pre…
You would be astounded how many people care about the form and not the function. They live among us. They vote.
Re: All you may need is HTML
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what you get when you prioritize companies over users. There's no reason websites should even be able to set the font in my browser. If it was just about websites achieving an acceptable look, you'd see people emulating industry leaders, but that's not what you see. Google, for example, uses Arial on its main page on my browsers at least--that's a font that's available on every browser I know of. If it's acce…
User defined styles trump those defined in a website stylesheet. You can absolutely insist that all websites use whatever font you want.
As I said, "Overriding a website's fonts with your browser settings doesn't really help, because sites often use pixels and other dimension units that make your site unreadable if you use a different font than what they tested with."
Of course that can also be fixed, but there's only so far you can take this. I have the technical ability to edit CSS, but I don't reasonably have the time to do it for every site I visit.
Re: All you may need is HTML
#246Earlier 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.
Totally agree. For me, the original is far easier to read than the "better" or "best" versions.
Initiate rant mode:
- The gray on gray is like a joke, except it's not. I get the theory and alleged benefits. I get that some do prefer it, especially for IDEs. I get that some are happy to see (or at least apply) it all over the web. It just does not seem to apply here. Man alive. Literally making it harder to differentiate the text.
- I don't mind adjusting the browser width to get the lines exactly the right length for my screen and reading preference. Actually, I far prefer it over all the other options. This is like a tragedy-of-the-commons or lowest-common-denominator or dumbing-down-on-the-false-premise-of-being-smart issue. Instead of utilizing what we have, and encouraging people to learn and become capable with the simple and flexible tools, it's one size fits all (or, you pick the size you think I want). Only it's not.
End of rant. Sheesh.
Re: All you may need is HTML
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one wants to write html_page.html, but html_page.js?? Now you’re talking.
Okay hear me out: html_page_analytics.js html_page_bundle.min.js html_page_tracking.js html_page_d8fd766d76223ae.min.js html_page_user.js html_page_banners.js html_page_pardot_dfa7s778d9aa.min.js
This should be put into a resume.
Re: All you may need is HTML
#248I understand the drive behind this.
Having written my fair share of HTML by hand, I'd say that the purpose may be better served by Markdown, or Org, or even plaintext. HTML has too much unnecessary detail if you're into low-effort content-centric stuff and cleanliness.
Learning HTML is fine, but learning HTML while avoiding CSS is not very useful, except as an esoteric hobby (like 6502 assembly, but much more complex). Using handwritten HTML if you're after content creation is unnecessary legwork.
OTOH holding an unorthodox view on a widespread technology, of course, improves one's chances to suddenly appear on the HN front page :)
Re: All you may need is HTML
#249Yes, amen! but...
Writing in HTML sucks, and it's a distraction from your writing itself. Markdown or text are better on that account. And then pushing code through FTP ain't super fun, especially given that having a pipeline that runs Jekyll or Hugo is free on github and pretty much a copy-paste.
From a consumption perspective, having some form of consistency across your blog is also pretty good, even if to satisfy your ego, especially if you get it for free.
I would argue that setting up a bit of infra on top of it, which will probably take the better part of an hour if it's your first time, is a very good way of reducing the friction and making sure you actually write.
Re: All you may need is HTML
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's very funny that you seem to think reading code and reading a website are the exact same type of activities, and the same type of reading. They are not. And I don't know where you've been for the last 30 some years, but the web is not a text only format, and the reason HTML was invented was specifically to be able to create a designed space where text can actually make sense and is not a gigantic wall of impossib…
Whats even more funny is HTML looks like a 'gigantic wall of impossibly small black and white text' when its rendered without a stylesheet.
Sounds like you ought to be doing the Richard Stallman approach to reading webpages and not commenting on whether or not CSS and design is needed. Back to the terminal with ye