Ignoring the security implications, I miss kb large old raw html websites that loaded instantly on DSL internet. Nowadays shit is too fancy because hardware allows that, but I feel we’re just constantly running into more bugs first and then worry about them later.

Edit: I’ve thought more about it, and I think I just missed the simplicity of the internet back then. There’s just too much bloat these days with ad trackers and misinformation. I kinda forgot just how bright and eye jarring most old UIs were lol.

  • DudeDudenson@lemmings.world
    90·
    8 months ago

    You know what I miss? When information was condensed instead of spread out to insert more ads. When software willingly gave you all the options you could ever need instead of removing most of them because “people might get confused”. When website took up the entire screen instead of a mobile wide strip in the middle because “it can be scary for people”.

    Fuck everyone who keeps lowering the bar of tech literacy just to appeal to the general public.

    • UsernameIsTooLon@lemmy.worldOP
      8·
      8 months ago

      I literally have a vertical monitor to avoid the middle strip of text problem. It especially sucks for higher resolution monitors, it just feels like so much wasted space on the left and right side of the article.

      • DudeDudenson@lemmings.world
        6·
        8 months ago

        The most used e-commerce platform on my country does this for the map for in store pick ups when selecting where the package is sent. The map is basically a long vertical strip and the actual map area occupies maybe 10-5% of a 1440p monitor.

        Drives me nuts every time I have to use it

      • IMALlama@lemmy.world
        3·
        8 months ago

        This is very true on anything above say 1080p and 100% scaling. I have 2x 1440p monitors and the strip of text in the middle is… way too prevent. That said, I have no idea how you would fill my monitor with useful information and have it scale. I’ve embraced running four columns of windows most of the time. Sometimes it’s two columns on one monitor and a full screen something on my other.

        • macrocephalic@lemmy.world
          2·
          8 months ago

          Yep, this is all a matter of window management. Having a 2000px wide column of text is terrible for readability.

          I run a 4k tv as the equivalent of four monitors. Normally I have four windows, but sometimes I use a whole half of the screen for an IDE. Some apps like Spotify I run at one eighth of the screen.

    • Tathas@programming.dev
      6·
      8 months ago

      Click next after each paragraph of the story so I can load more ads! And by paragraph, I mean one <p> tag per sentence.</p>

    • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
      4·
      8 months ago

      I miss the time when UI was utilitarian. None of that rounded corners and fancy themes nonsense. Function over form.

        • NateNate60@lemmy.ml
          2·
          8 months ago

          The Google front page is no longer plain HTML but apparently, they spent a lot of time optimising the logo so it could load in less than a second on a dial-up connection. It’s still remarkably plain when compared to other search engines though.

    • doppelgangmember@lemmy.world
      4·
      8 months ago

      I saw a web page from 1999 today and as a full stack dev I immediately clicked away bc obvi NSFW

      BUT then I had the urge to go back to this simple ass web “site” and just admire it for a second like “wow, someone probably spent weeks on this 2 day design”.

      Tbh afterwards I was kind of in awe that every option was available on each page with no sidebars or extra clicks. Not slick but quick tho!

      • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
        2·
        8 months ago

        There was a design/development company which made sites and they bragged about making pixel perfect web sites. I can’t for the life of me find them again but I remember when I saw their portfolio it was like porn for web developers. Everything was done simply and with least amount of images possible, but it looked so good.

  • Endorkend@kbin.social
    52·
    8 months ago

    Ignoring the security implications.

    There are literally none with basic html.

    It’s when you started adding shit like Shockwave, javascript and the like, all massive security holes, things got dicey.

    Plain old HTML, none what so ever.

  • SmashingSquid@notyour.rodeo
    32·
    8 months ago

    Most of the issue with loading times are the billion ads and trackers. There are sites I visit that load instantly with Adblock on but extremely slow without it.

  • Nobody@lemmy.world
    29·
    8 months ago

    Find the right webring, and you’d hit a treasure trove of content. Dig a little deeper and find something even more interesting. The pre-corporate takeover internet.

    We talk about enshittification ruining everything, but Facebook and Web 2.0 started ripping out the heart of the internet. Everyone went along with it, and corporate claws sunk in. The fun internet got pushed aside for the ad-friendly internet.

    • UsernameIsTooLon@lemmy.worldOP
      7·
      8 months ago

      No need. As someone who understands web development enough to know I know nothing about web development, it makes sense to me why the internet is what it is today. It’s all about establishing a brand and identity now so doing extra things can make you stand out.

      While YouTube has gotten more sluggish over the years, I do think some recent changes like ambient mode have been pretty cool. I also support reasonable hardware requirements because things get obsolete over time.

      I guess I just miss the simplicity of early internet browsing more compared to all the bloat that exists today.

  • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
    21·
    8 months ago

    There isn’t a day I don’t think about how annoying the modern web is. Fancy crap, GDPR, a trillion frameworks weighing 1mb+ each, a ton of useless extra info for SEO and whatnot. All to see the pure information I initially seeked saying “yes”. Which could’ve been a 1kb site.

      • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
        8·
        8 months ago

        Truetrue. Yet it still doesn’t serve much of a protection service. What should we care a about a tracking-cookie when most sites use multiple tracking-scripts anyway? Or force you to either accept or pay. Or simply deny entry at all.

        I just need another plugin to block another thing…

  • folkrav@lemmy.world
    18·
    8 months ago

    I miss kb large old raw html websites that loaded instantly on DSL internet

    Instantly? We had very different DSL connections 😳

    • Tippon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      4·
      8 months ago

      It depends on when you had it. I had a 4Mb connection when most people were still on dialup, and it flew.

  • qyron@sopuli.xyz
    15·
    8 months ago

    What would stop an individual or company nowadays to build a pure html website? Isn’t this what a “static site” is?

    Isn’t this what HUGO and Jekyll produce, only a little bit prettier?

    • slazer2au@lemmy.world
      14·
      8 months ago

      Nothing. Warren Buffetts company Berkshire Hathaway has the most simple business’s site of all time.

      https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/

      The fault is a combination of execs wanting a slick site, marketing wanting a highly SEO scoring page, and Devs wanting to play with web frameworks.

      • NateNate60@lemmy.ml
        11·
        8 months ago

        Hey, they even have an old-school tracker-free static advertisement image on that page. Now that’s a classic.

      • griD@feddit.de
        3·
        8 months ago

        Table-based layout, that shit is ancient. We used to build websites this way >20years ago ^^ Mainly because IE was too stupid for anything else.

        • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
          2·
          8 months ago

          I distinctly remember when designers got a hard on for rounded corners and IE couldn’t render them. So we ended up making a 9 cell table for each element that was suppose to have rounded corners and loaded images which repeated themselves. Indulging IE users, which were plenty, was such a pain.

      • calzone_gigante@lemmy.world
        5·
        8 months ago

        I dont think that usability or acessibility gets so much in the way. It’s more about thinking webpages as applications instead of documents. Plain html is easier for screenreaders and larger fonts. You can also get responsive with very little css.

        Simplicity is just not the goal anymore.

      • qyron@sopuli.xyz
        1·
        8 months ago

        So essentially what you are saying is getting in between people and smaller, simpler and faster loading sites is convinience and other people?

          • qyron@sopuli.xyz
            2·
            8 months ago

            I don’t have any real knowledge of html but I have a vague memory about reading an article where it was mentioned there was a very simple way for a website to “ask” what was the available resolution and fit itself to it in human friendly format.

            When comes to manually zooming in or out - especially when on a smartphone - on a webpage, I admit I prefer it. It had a very short learning curve and it transmits a cleaner feeling of interacting with the website instead of having whatever it may be running behind the scenes shifting and adjusting the focus to some random point I have no interest on.

              • qyron@sopuli.xyz
                1·
                8 months ago

                You mention wikipedia and that is one site where regardless being essentialy text, pages can take immense time to load.

                I respect the efforts to make things more accessible but there is the feeling that much more effort goes towards fluff and eye-candy than real, tangible, improvement.