https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/
Beautiful.
During Helene, I just wanted a plain text website
91–100 of 193 posts
Re: During Helene, I just wanted a plain text website
#92Actually, there are readily available tools that can do this. Many websites have implemented accessibility features for the blind, allowing users to read all text information on the screen, as well as alt text for accompanying images. This feature might be hidden, and many people are unaware of it.
Re: During Helene, I just wanted a plain text website
#93Several news sites offer text only versions. https://lite.cnn.com/ https://text.npr.org/ https://wttr.in/ More listed at https://greycoder.com/a-list-of-text-only-new-sites It’d be great if there was some standard that allowed these to be easily found, and supported on the local news sites.
> https://wttr.in/
didnt load for me
Re: During Helene, I just wanted a plain text website
#94Giving weather fenomenons a human name is the silliest thing humanity have invented.
Re: During Helene, I just wanted a plain text website
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, this raises 2 important nuances: - How severe is the impact, and - How close is the default state to the constraint Kerb cuts help everyone. Kids, the elderly, disabled people, and anyone distracted by their phone are all less likely to fall on their face and lose a tooth. Web accessibility helps websites go from unusable for disabled people, to usable. On the other hand, when a dev puts a website on a diet it mi…
Google has done Google-scale traffic analysis and determined that even a 100ms delay has noticeable impacts on user retention. If a website takes more than 3 seconds to load, over 50% of visitors will bail. To say that there is no payoff for optimization is categorically incorrect. The incentives are there. Web developers are just, on average, extremely bad at their jobs. The field has been made significantly more ac…
This test was a while ago - it’d be interesting to see if it’s still the case and if the results reproduce. But still let’s consider that Google is Google and most websites are just happy to have some traffic.
People go to Google expecting it to quickly get them info. On other sites the info is worth waiting an extra second for.
At Google scale, a drop in traffic results in a massive corresponding drop in revenue. But most websites don’t even monetize.
They’re both websites but that’s all they have in common.
Re: During Helene, I just wanted a plain text website
#96Giving weather fenomenons a human name is the silliest thing humanity have invented.
Can't they just reuse Ubuntu version names?
Re: During Helene, I just wanted a plain text website
#97Giving weather fenomenons a human name is the silliest thing humanity have invented.
On the contrary, it helps underscore a storm's significance and allow for memetic spreading of information around the storm. You obviously didn't grow up in a hurricane-prone area.
Re: During Helene, I just wanted a plain text website
#98Several news sites offer text only versions. https://lite.cnn.com/ https://text.npr.org/ https://wttr.in/ More listed at https://greycoder.com/a-list-of-text-only-new-sites It’d be great if there was some standard that allowed these to be easily found, and supported on the local news sites.
Google also used to have a go app which they deprecated later on, while now i think about it what is the use of having a go app, if the websites which are shown in search results are not optimised for slower networks.
Re: During Helene, I just wanted a plain text website
#99Re: During Helene, I just wanted a plain text website
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google has done Google-scale traffic analysis and determined that even a 100ms delay has noticeable impacts on user retention. If a website takes more than 3 seconds to load, over 50% of visitors will bail. To say that there is no payoff for optimization is categorically incorrect. The incentives are there. Web developers are just, on average, extremely bad at their jobs. The field has been made significantly more ac…
This test was a while ago - it’d be interesting to see if it’s still the case and if the results reproduce. But still let’s consider that Google is Google and most websites are just happy to have some traffic. People go to Google expecting it to quickly get them info. On other sites the info is worth waiting an extra second for. At Google scale, a drop in traffic results in a massive corresponding drop in revenue. Bu…
If you are a hobbyist hosting your own website for fun, sure, whatever. Do what floats your boat, you're under no obligation for your website to meet any kind of standard.
The vast majority of web traffic is directed towards websites that are commercial in nature[1], though. Any drop in traffic is a drop in revenue. If you are paid tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to provide a portal wherein people visit your employer's website and give them money (or indirectly give them money via advertisement impressions), and shrug your shoulders at the idea of 50% of visitors bouncing, you are not good at your job. But hey, at least you'd be in good company, because most web developers are like that, which is why the web is as awful to use as it is.
[1]The only website in the top 10 most visited that is not openly commercial is Wikipedia, but it still aggressively monetizes by shaking down its visitors for donations and earns around $200 million a year in revenue. They would certainly notice if 50% or even 10% of their visitors were bouncing too.