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

Tiny Awards for Small Websites

tinyawards.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 84 posts

Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites

#61

Post by JadeNB »

chrismorgan wrote: post #51
rchaud wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, I've been on the hunt for non-commercial websites for close to a decade. It's pretty barren out there. Three types of people have websites these days: 1) People trying to sell something: courses, books, their resume, etc. 2) People interested in blogging, who give up after less than a year due to lack of visibility (compared to Medium/Substack) 3) People who created their website in the 90s and saw no reason to s…

> 2) People interested in blogging, who give up after less than a year due to lack of visibility (compared to Medium/Substack) You don’t think most people that post to the likes of Medium or Substack also give up quickly?

> > 2) People interested in blogging, who give up after less than a year due to lack of visibility (compared to Medium/Substack)

> You don’t think most people that post to the likes of Medium or Substack also give up quickly?

I think the parent meant "lack of visibility compared to Medium/Substack", not "give up after less than a year compared to [longer viability on] Medium/Substack". (If you, in turn, meant implicitly just to say "read Medium/Substack", then I think that fails on the "small, personal" criteria, and possibly also on "non-commercial".)

Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites

#62

Post by JadeNB »

rchaud wrote: post #50
hxii wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t mention scope anywhere. It says “small web”, and last I checked “small” implies size, not scope. How do you not get bored of fighting windmills?

A small website means something that is a one-person operation and personal in nature. Only on HN could that be interpreted to mean 'smallest possible file size'.

> A small website means something that is a one-person operation and personal in nature. Only on HN could that be interpreted to mean 'smallest possible file size'.

Your definition of ‘small website’ is certainly a reasonable one, but I think to claim that only a tech geek could think that ‘small’ meant ‘small file size’ is overstating it.

Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites

#63

Post by 2b3a51 »

vintagedave wrote: post #60
2b3a51 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Readable (just) in Seamonkey although some of the text is overwriting other text. Fully readable in links on the command line. Well done.

Thankyou! I'll check SeaMonkey. I've tested only Firefox, Chrome and Safari (and desktop and mobile) so far. Really glad to hear it works in links! That's awesome. There should be a reasonable amount of accessibility markup too (in how it's structured plus some specific accessibility items) for screen readers as well.

Try palemoon perhaps.

Seamonkey is an old school fork of Netscape before they pulled out Firefox. I suspect the CSS rendering is marginal CSS 2.

I use Seamonky on OpenBSD i386 arch as Firefox no longer supported. I am using deliberately low spec computers for personal surfing.

The links render shows the 'skip to main content' link which is always a good sign that accessibility has been addressed.

Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites

#64

Post by chrismorgan »

JadeNB wrote: post #61
chrismorgan wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2) People interested in blogging, who give up after less than a year due to lack of visibility (compared to Medium/Substack) You don’t think most people that post to the likes of Medium or Substack also give up quickly?

> > 2) People interested in blogging, who give up after less than a year due to lack of visibility (compared to Medium/Substack) > You don’t think most people that post to the likes of Medium or Substack also give up quickly? I think the parent meant "lack of visibility compared to Medium/Substack", not "give up after less than a year compared to [longer viability on] Medium/Substack". (If you, in turn, meant implici…

I read rchaud as saying “people that give up on blogging not long after starting because they’re not getting readers, whereas if they had posted on Medium/Substack they would get readers and would continue”, but I think that doesn’t reflect reality or the reasons people stop.

Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites

#66

Post by chrismorgan »

shlubbert wrote: post #65

I wonder if there'll ever be a webpage submission on HN where 50% of the comments aren't just complaining about the presentation or the way it's been implemented.

It doesn’t normally happen by any means. It happened this time due to the nature of the submission, which makes it relevant: it’s about the “small web”, but has itself used techniques of the “big web” (and poorly implemented at that) that mesh very poorly with that goal. Ultimately, it is unfortunately an unusually poorly put-together website, which has (at least to this audience, which is more sensitive to such matters than most) undermined its otherwise interesting goal and purpose.

Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites

#67

Post by shlubbert »

chrismorgan wrote: post #66
shlubbert wrote: post #65

I wonder if there'll ever be a webpage submission on HN where 50% of the comments aren't just complaining about the presentation or the way it's been implemented.

It doesn’t normally happen by any means. It happened this time due to the nature of the submission, which makes it relevant: it’s about the “small web”, but has itself used techniques of the “big web” (and poorly implemented at that) that mesh very poorly with that goal. Ultimately, it is unfortunately an unusually poorly put-together website, which has (at least to this audience, which is more sensitive to such matt…

It's an award for sites that "embody the idea of a small, playful and heartfelt web", not for who can code the most minimal and efficient HTML. I don't know what these commenters are trying to demonstrate other than that they missed the point of this entirely well-meaning effort.

Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites

#68

Post by rchaud »

JadeNB wrote: post #62
rchaud wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A small website means something that is a one-person operation and personal in nature. Only on HN could that be interpreted to mean 'smallest possible file size'.

> A small website means something that is a one-person operation and personal in nature. Only on HN could that be interpreted to mean 'smallest possible file size'. Your definition of ‘small website’ is certainly a reasonable one, but I think to claim that only a tech geek could think that ‘small’ meant ‘small file size’ is overstating it.

I didn't say tech geek, I said HN. Tech geeks understand personal websites. Only on HN do those threads turn into monotonous pontifications about Hugo v Ghost or whether a site renders with JS turned off.

Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites

#69

Post by rchaud »

chrismorgan wrote: post #51
rchaud wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, I've been on the hunt for non-commercial websites for close to a decade. It's pretty barren out there. Three types of people have websites these days: 1) People trying to sell something: courses, books, their resume, etc. 2) People interested in blogging, who give up after less than a year due to lack of visibility (compared to Medium/Substack) 3) People who created their website in the 90s and saw no reason to s…

> 2) People interested in blogging, who give up after less than a year due to lack of visibility (compared to Medium/Substack) You don’t think most people that post to the likes of Medium or Substack also give up quickly?

I'm sure they do, but I'm not looking in those places. Setting up a personal website comes with a certain amount of friction compared to SS or M, which IMO iS a better signal for whether that person is serious about doing this.

Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites

#70

Post by astroalex »

chrismorgan wrote: post #66
shlubbert wrote: post #65

I wonder if there'll ever be a webpage submission on HN where 50% of the comments aren't just complaining about the presentation or the way it's been implemented.

It doesn’t normally happen by any means. It happened this time due to the nature of the submission, which makes it relevant: it’s about the “small web”, but has itself used techniques of the “big web” (and poorly implemented at that) that mesh very poorly with that goal. Ultimately, it is unfortunately an unusually poorly put-together website, which has (at least to this audience, which is more sensitive to such matt…

I think you have misunderstood their use of the word "small". It is not small in the sense of having a small file size, loading quickly, or eschewing the use of JavaScript frameworks, but "small" in the sense of being humble, independently created, small in scope, outside commercial activity.
Post reply on HN