No JS, No CSS, No HTML: online "clubs" celebrate plainer websites
-
We can go further. We could take away your fancy "URL"s and just use IP addresses for navigation.
Heck, we could do away with TCP/IP altogether and network over serial. It's a perfectly functional protocol with several baud rates to choose from. I like ol' reliable 9600, but I sometimes dabble in 115200 when I'm feeling adventurous.
At this point: Just sing the voice dial tone by yourself.
-
The revived No JS Club celebrates websites that don't use Javascript, the powerful but sometimes overused code that's been bloating the web and crashing tabs since 1995. The No CSS Club goes a step further and forbids even a scrap of styling beyond the browser defaults. And there is even the No HTML Club, where you're not even allowed to use HTML. Plain text websites!
The modern web is the pure incarnation of evil. When Satan has a 1v1 with his manager, he confers with the modern web. If Satan is Sauron, then the modern web is Melkor [1]. Every horror that you can imagine is because of the modern web. Modern web is not an existential risk (X-risk), but is an astronomic suffering risk (S-risk) [2]. It is the duty of each and every man, woman, and child to revolt against it. If you're not working on returning civilization to ooga-booga, you're a bad person.
A compromise with the clubs is called for. A hypertext brutalism that uses the raw materials of the web to functional, honest ends while allowing web technologies to support clarity, legibility and accessibility. Compare this notion to the web brutalism of recent times, which started off in similar vein but soon became a self-subverting aesthetic: sites using 2.4MB frameworks to add text-shadow: 40px 40px 0px hotpink to 400kb Helvetica webfonts that were already on your computer.
I also like the idea of implementing "hypotext" as an inversion of hypertext. This would somehow avoid the failure modes of extending the structure of text by failing in other ways that are more fun. But I'm in two minds about whether that would be just a toy (e.g. references banished to metadata, i.e. footnotes are the hypertext) or something more conceptual that uses references to collapse the structure of text rather than extend it (e.g. links are includes and going near them spaghettifies your brain). The term is already in use in a structuralist sense, which is to say there are 2 million words of French I have to read first if I want to get away with any of this.
Republished Under Creative Commons Terms.
Boing Boing Original Article.Get this bs outta here. I write on paper! No one knows my thoughts or feelings!!
-
Oh, come on. You really want some at least readable output. Things like image borders, consistently positioned images/diagrams, line breaks and page borders. Some whitespace and indentations, too. You just can't read a couple of pages full of unformatted raw text without massive eye fatigue. I'm all for dumping JS and excessive frameworks, I'd prefer well-formed XHTML over any of that clients-side scripted crap, but totally rejecting CSS is pointless zealotry.
Why do you think I'm advocating for getting rid of CSS and not being silly?
-
A lot of websites can be static HTML + CSS.
Yeah they can, I can understand you might want to use something like php to not need to edit the footers and headers every page if you ever change them, but still.
I also like how some websites like Amazon.com refuse to add a payment platform which is more than a credit card checkout. Especially because their EU sites do have payment platforms with more options to pay. So then you have an over complicated site already with a lot of bloat and some amount of your consumers can't even pay.
Then use a site generator like Hugo or Jekyll to stamp out new versions of your site with matching header/footer/etc.
-
The revived No JS Club celebrates websites that don't use Javascript, the powerful but sometimes overused code that's been bloating the web and crashing tabs since 1995. The No CSS Club goes a step further and forbids even a scrap of styling beyond the browser defaults. And there is even the No HTML Club, where you're not even allowed to use HTML. Plain text websites!
The modern web is the pure incarnation of evil. When Satan has a 1v1 with his manager, he confers with the modern web. If Satan is Sauron, then the modern web is Melkor [1]. Every horror that you can imagine is because of the modern web. Modern web is not an existential risk (X-risk), but is an astronomic suffering risk (S-risk) [2]. It is the duty of each and every man, woman, and child to revolt against it. If you're not working on returning civilization to ooga-booga, you're a bad person.
A compromise with the clubs is called for. A hypertext brutalism that uses the raw materials of the web to functional, honest ends while allowing web technologies to support clarity, legibility and accessibility. Compare this notion to the web brutalism of recent times, which started off in similar vein but soon became a self-subverting aesthetic: sites using 2.4MB frameworks to add text-shadow: 40px 40px 0px hotpink to 400kb Helvetica webfonts that were already on your computer.
I also like the idea of implementing "hypotext" as an inversion of hypertext. This would somehow avoid the failure modes of extending the structure of text by failing in other ways that are more fun. But I'm in two minds about whether that would be just a toy (e.g. references banished to metadata, i.e. footnotes are the hypertext) or something more conceptual that uses references to collapse the structure of text rather than extend it (e.g. links are includes and going near them spaghettifies your brain). The term is already in use in a structuralist sense, which is to say there are 2 million words of French I have to read first if I want to get away with any of this.
Republished Under Creative Commons Terms.
Boing Boing Original Article.I rather have these people embrace gopher
-
Get this bs outta here. I write on paper! No one knows my thoughts or feelings!!
What devilry is this? Written word?
Real cultures use oral history to store knowledge! -
Oh, come on. You really want some at least readable output. Things like image borders, consistently positioned images/diagrams, line breaks and page borders. Some whitespace and indentations, too. You just can't read a couple of pages full of unformatted raw text without massive eye fatigue. I'm all for dumping JS and excessive frameworks, I'd prefer well-formed XHTML over any of that clients-side scripted crap, but totally rejecting CSS is pointless zealotry.
HTML but no-CSS has defaults though.
Can you read books
-
I rather have these people embrace gopher
Let's not. It's a terrible protocol with amateur design errors.
-
The revived No JS Club celebrates websites that don't use Javascript, the powerful but sometimes overused code that's been bloating the web and crashing tabs since 1995. The No CSS Club goes a step further and forbids even a scrap of styling beyond the browser defaults. And there is even the No HTML Club, where you're not even allowed to use HTML. Plain text websites!
The modern web is the pure incarnation of evil. When Satan has a 1v1 with his manager, he confers with the modern web. If Satan is Sauron, then the modern web is Melkor [1]. Every horror that you can imagine is because of the modern web. Modern web is not an existential risk (X-risk), but is an astronomic suffering risk (S-risk) [2]. It is the duty of each and every man, woman, and child to revolt against it. If you're not working on returning civilization to ooga-booga, you're a bad person.
A compromise with the clubs is called for. A hypertext brutalism that uses the raw materials of the web to functional, honest ends while allowing web technologies to support clarity, legibility and accessibility. Compare this notion to the web brutalism of recent times, which started off in similar vein but soon became a self-subverting aesthetic: sites using 2.4MB frameworks to add text-shadow: 40px 40px 0px hotpink to 400kb Helvetica webfonts that were already on your computer.
I also like the idea of implementing "hypotext" as an inversion of hypertext. This would somehow avoid the failure modes of extending the structure of text by failing in other ways that are more fun. But I'm in two minds about whether that would be just a toy (e.g. references banished to metadata, i.e. footnotes are the hypertext) or something more conceptual that uses references to collapse the structure of text rather than extend it (e.g. links are includes and going near them spaghettifies your brain). The term is already in use in a structuralist sense, which is to say there are 2 million words of French I have to read first if I want to get away with any of this.
Republished Under Creative Commons Terms.
Boing Boing Original Article.Maybe we could have
No-JSandNo-Client-Storage(which would include cookies) headers added to HTTP. Browsers could potentially display an icon showing this to users on the address bar.Theoretically, browsers could even stop from the JS engine from being started for the site in the first place. Though I wouldn't be surprised if the engine is too tied into the code of modern browsers for that to work.
-
Oh, come on. You really want some at least readable output. Things like image borders, consistently positioned images/diagrams, line breaks and page borders. Some whitespace and indentations, too. You just can't read a couple of pages full of unformatted raw text without massive eye fatigue. I'm all for dumping JS and excessive frameworks, I'd prefer well-formed XHTML over any of that clients-side scripted crap, but totally rejecting CSS is pointless zealotry.
Some people haven't lived through the time when HTML layout was done through nested tables, and it shows.
-
The main downside is that you need a specific browser, or an extension for your average browser, to load gemini sites.
And they purposely hobbled certain things people want, like inline links and images. Some clients will do it anyway, but it's against the collective wishes of the developers.
If I wanted to track people on Gemini, I could totally do it. It'd just be in a more server-to-server way than how its evolved on HTTP (pixel trackers and such).
-
How many different languages do you speak?
Two fluently, and maybe a tenth each of two more, why?
-
Separating layout from content is good. CSS is a really bad way to do it.
Do you have an example of a good way to do it?
-
HTML but no-CSS has defaults though.
Can you read books
wrote last edited by [email protected]Yes , I can read books. I even read one or two of the 1200 around me. Those with the fuckpics and some of the funnier ones, like "Phänomenologie des Geistes" by Hegel. I wouldn't have if they had been layouted using browser standards.
-
Why do you think I'm advocating for getting rid of CSS and not being silly?
I don't think. You can't prove I do! Leave me alone. You're one of them! I knew it all the time.
-
Maybe we could have
No-JSandNo-Client-Storage(which would include cookies) headers added to HTTP. Browsers could potentially display an icon showing this to users on the address bar.Theoretically, browsers could even stop from the JS engine from being started for the site in the first place. Though I wouldn't be surprised if the engine is too tied into the code of modern browsers for that to work.
A Content-Security-Policy with script-src 'none' should already allow for that . no js can be loaded like that
-
Two fluently, and maybe a tenth each of two more, why?
Because then you know that it isn't easy to keep on top of it all the time.
I would appreciate it if you wouldn't just point at my mistake but say what would be right and why. If you know, that is.
-
I think because in 10 or so years, there might be a new standard that breaks the site again. Or makes it unusable.
TXT walkthroughs are still used for a reason. Its much harder to break txt files over decades.
All that is assuming someone still wants to read your txt but that is besides the point.
This. Text files are great for so many reasons! Hard to construct something malicious, too, so pretty great for uploads.
-
Sure, but you can’t be tracked via css so it’s okay in my book. Have fun with your whacky css sites.
whacky css sites.
-
Yes , I can read books. I even read one or two of the 1200 around me. Those with the fuckpics and some of the funnier ones, like "Phänomenologie des Geistes" by Hegel. I wouldn't have if they had been layouted using browser standards.
They’re not standards, it’s just default styles, which you can change.
