It was x.gif, 1x1.gif was a waste of two bytes which was considerable savings on those insane table layouts.
Only 90s web developers remember this (2014)
51–60 of 354 posts
Re: Only 90s web developers remember this (2014)
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
What could you do in Flash that cannot be done now in JS/CSS? I don't understand this love for Flash that won't die. Yes, it did something usable well before JS/CSS caught up, but we're there now and well past what Flash brought us. Mainly, now things freakin searchable, and you no longer have to live in fear of what the next major vuln exposed by Flash would do to you.
Where are the browser games built with Html5 to compare with the Cambrian explosion of Flash games that everyone and their brother made circa 2000-2010? Like all things, it's been made more difficult and the authoring tools are worse.
>Where are the browser games built with Html5
I'd say they're all on mobile making money through IAPs vs some freely distributed game on a website.
> it's been made more difficult and the authoring tools are worse.
With the prolific amount of titles on mobile, I'd say they found the better platform to build on.
However, you never answered the question as asked. Whataboutism runs amuck. What could you do in Flash that cannot be done in modern JS/CSS today?
Re: Only 90s web developers remember this (2014)
#53That's the first time I've heard DHTML to mean "distributed HTML" — I always knew it to mean "dynamic HTML".
Yeah, it is dynamic. But the author also mentioned putting spacer gifs in semantically appropriate containers, so I think it may have been a joke?
Yes the whole thing is a joke, and is sarcastic. At least, that's the impression I got.
Re: Only 90s web developers remember this (2014)
#54I'm missing the :
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/HTML/Element/marqu...
, the "under construction" GIFs:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/9akenz/this-guy-compiled-eve...
and those lightsaber horizontal content dividers.
Re: Only 90s web developers remember this (2014)
#55> The absolute first thing we did with CSS was use it to stop underlining links. I don't know how this trend came to be. I fought it for as long as I could, links are underlined and when you hovered them the underline would go away to make it extra clear this is an interactive element. I considered it a staple of good design. Why did we remove the underline?
In a word: print designers.
Traditional print designers started doing web design without investing the time to understand the important differences in the (new) paradigm.
Sadly, that root problem too often persists to today.
Re: Only 90s web developers remember this (2014)
#56> The absolute first thing we did with CSS was use it to stop underlining links. I don't know how this trend came to be. I fought it for as long as I could, links are underlined and when you hovered them the underline would go away to make it extra clear this is an interactive element. I considered it a staple of good design. Why did we remove the underline?
Probably the same reason we started to like flat buttons?
Wait, some people actually like flat buttons?
Re: Only 90s web developers remember this (2014)
#57> The absolute first thing we did with CSS was use it to stop underlining links. I don't know how this trend came to be. I fought it for as long as I could, links are underlined and when you hovered them the underline would go away to make it extra clear this is an interactive element. I considered it a staple of good design. Why did we remove the underline?
Most sites invert that effect: hovering reveals the underline. The link is still distinguishable by color, still apparently interactive by hover effect, and preserves underlining as a styling option in the text, which is preferable.
Re: Only 90s web developers remember this (2014)
#58who remembers 88x36 button banners? You could approach any webmaster in your niche and exchange such banners. Fun times.
Re: Only 90s web developers remember this (2014)
#59That's the first time I've heard DHTML to mean "distributed HTML" — I always knew it to mean "dynamic HTML".
Am I the only one who found the term DHTML to be one of the most useless initialisms that came from web development?
I remember seeing "DHTML" still being thrown around as late as 2005, but knowing that I could refer to the components of a webpage as "DHTML" never seemed to have any sort of utility. I never cared that I could refer to the markup as being dynamic. Big deal. What scripts and applets could I add to make things move?
Of course now we're still stuck with this "HTML5" canard that won't die because nontechnical people seem to believe it's more advanced than "HTML".