Nice, I couldn't load the page without enabling a bunch of useless JavaScript. Maybe we have different definitions of "small".
> Maybe we have different definitions of "small".
You do!
Tiny Awards for Small Websites
71–80 of 84 posts
Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites
#72This is awesome. Almost all content on the internet has been centralized by social networks, so it brings me joy to see an appetite for small, personal, non-commercial websites.
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…
I agree! Which is why I'm excited by an award promoting small personal websites. It's like an oasis in a barren desert of people trying to sell you things.
Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What happened to "I'll edit this .html file and FTP it up, with maybe a light sprinkling of CSS and js for any interactive elements"? What happened are people being annoyed with hand-fucking html every time they want to write a blogpost started writing/using static site builders
So instead of typing ("hand fucking") a few HTML characters around your blog post you trade it in for a big complex orgy of additional abstractions, tools, and processes.
I don’t understand how something like Jekyll could be considered big and complex. What examples do you have in mind?
Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like static builders. It's just markdown files and some templates. It makes editing much easier. If your website is about the content and not the presentation, it makes a lot of sense. I made my own static site builder (typical HN!) and it's just a python package. At its simplest it depends on Python Markdown and Jinja. The website itself is dead simple and gracefully degrades. It's just text on a page after all.
> I made my own static site builder (typical HN!) and it's just a python package Same! I designed the look of my site, and then wrote Python to generate it, though instead of Jinja I even wrote my own templating library. The goal of reinventing the wheel was to learn Python through writing a non-trivial, useful app and libraries. I haven't quite mustered up the courage to publish the source, yet, though: being a lear…
Mine replaces Craft CMS and its twig templating system, so Jinja made a lot of sense.
It also converts and resizes images, processes SCSS, and a few other things that suit my workflow.
Editing source-controlled files in a familiar text editor is blissful.
Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites
#75Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites
#76To me the idea of a small web is a great one. But then for some reason everyone equates small with "static builder" and before you know it you're into a hellscape of complexity with static site builders, SPAs and other madness. What happened to "I'll edit this .html file and FTP it up, with maybe a light sprinkling of CSS and js for any interactive elements"? Why did devs get obsessed with a deeply complex jamstack t…
I don't think it's fair to equate static site generators with SPAs. At its core, a static site generator just renders markdown and slots it into html templates. That's nice and convenient and still perfectly simple.
Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
So instead of typing ("hand fucking") a few HTML characters around your blog post you trade it in for a big complex orgy of additional abstractions, tools, and processes.
I don’t understand how something like Jekyll could be considered big and complex. What examples do you have in mind?
Well, I run my own blog on Gatsby, and about once per year I have to dedicate a weekend to figure out how to make it run locally again, because the entire JS ecosystem is an unstable hellscape of ever-changing complexity that morphs from one shape to another for absolutely no reason at all.
Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If you have a few minutes to kill, I'd love to know how allaboutberlin.com feels on such a device. I sometimes choose convenience over coverage, but I still try to make the website accessible.
Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites
#79To me the idea of a small web is a great one. But then for some reason everyone equates small with "static builder" and before you know it you're into a hellscape of complexity with static site builders, SPAs and other madness. What happened to "I'll edit this .html file and FTP it up, with maybe a light sprinkling of CSS and js for any interactive elements"? Why did devs get obsessed with a deeply complex jamstack t…
> Why did devs get obsessed with a deeply complex jamstack type thing to do even incredibly simple sites? Because devs don't think of websites like a place for personal expression; to them, personal websites are usually roughly structured wikis of stuff they've learned that would be mostly hard to read or follow for others. So they geek out over the details of the blog infrastructure. If instead of a website, they we…
This seems like the correct answer. I can't think of how many times I've been like "I should publicize all my notes" and then I restart the cycle of looking into blogging or note-taking/wiki software (with publishing options like Notion). I'm not much into writing long-form content, but I journal and log pretty consistently. It's always the "distill this body of knowledge into an easily consumable article-style thing" that I lose interest, both because it's hard but also because I feel the return on investment is super low. I already get the benefits of my notes, and blogs are too 1-way to get meaningful feedback unless it goes "viral" on a link aggregator like HN or Lobsters. Maybe I just underestimate how much feedback is typically given or over estimate the difficulty in making it to the front page...
Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites
#80To me the idea of a small web is a great one. But then for some reason everyone equates small with "static builder" and before you know it you're into a hellscape of complexity with static site builders, SPAs and other madness. What happened to "I'll edit this .html file and FTP it up, with maybe a light sprinkling of CSS and js for any interactive elements"? Why did devs get obsessed with a deeply complex jamstack t…
in my bolg, i use vscode write markdown files，next run a simple nodejs script: use pandoc convert md to html and rewrite index.html.I'm happy with this simple enough build system that it gets me started writing lightly.
https://www.seazhang.com/, Link are given as examples, because blog content is Chinese and personal, not worth mentioning.