The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Simple Websites

Comments

• mox@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Also:

  • Simple sites allow visitors to stay safe from browser exploits by keeping scripts disabled.
  • Simple sites pose very little threat of fingerprinting or other invasive tracking techniques.
  • Simple sites can look beautiful, with a bit of well-crafted CSS.

  source

  • Kushan@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I don’t think your second point is correct. You can still embed analytics on a static website. I believe you’re conflating it with your first point by assuming that scripts are disabled on the browser side, in which case it’s a bit of a redundant point.

    I also think it’s a bit unrealistic in this day and age to run with scripts completely disabled. I know it sucks, but we need better ways of protecting our privacy and disabling all scripts is a bit of an extreme measure given so much of the modern web relies on it.

    source

    • mox@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      1. My first two points make a distinction between fingerprinting and more invasive attacks that JavaScript has enabled, including data exfiltration. You might not have encountered the latter, but that doesn’t make them the same thing. (Also, the analytics you refer to that are possible without scripts are far less invasive, as I said.)
      2. It’s not unrealistic, since scripts can be enabled selectively. (But were that not the case, it would be reason to use them less, not more.)

      source
    • thesystemisdown@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I think it’s mostly impossible if you want for things to work. JavaScript is so ubiquitous, it’s been baked into the browser since 1995.

      source
• pixxelkick@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I think the reason experienced devs tend to have minimalist websites that look like they are from the 90s, is because software devs aren’t UX experts.

  At a senior level at large companies, someone else designs the look and figmas to make the site be pretty. I don’t do that shit.

  I can do some basic stuff as a front end dev, but react has nothing to do with css animations and all the stuff you typically associate with a “pretty” website.

  Reactive frameworks are just handy for updating the dom on a mutatable website (ie forms, web socket stuff, data in out, pulling data from a db)

  Blogs tend to be statically generated so there should be zero reason to use reactive frameworks anyways, unless you add something dynamic like perhaps a comment box folks can login to and leave comments/likes/shares etc. Loading those comments will prolly want a framework.

  Aside from that, it’s mostly css to do fancy stuff.

  source

  • knfrmity@lemmygrad.ml ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Pretty sites are cool and all, but in my experience super simple things often just don’t work. I’m not patient anymore when it comes to stuff like that, so I’ll close the tab real quick and find the information elsewhere or move on to the next thing.

    source

    • Lmaydev@programming.dev ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Pretty sites aren’t aimed at us though.

      For the average consumer grabbing their attention is really important and first impressions mean a lot.

      If they go onto a site that looks “basic” it’ll give a bad impression of the business.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Obligatory:

  motherfuckingwebsite.com

  source

  • BautAufWasEuchAufbaut@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    motherfuckingwebsite.com
    bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com thebestmotherfucking.website

    source
  • simonced@lemmy.one ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    what the fuck else do you want?

    Lol, maybe a max-width on body at least, so I don’t lose my line when reading long lines.
    It’s said to have narrow lines helps readeability for a reason.

    Although, I agree, you don’t need much to make a website that is functional.

    source
  • Kolanaki@yiffit.net ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    And here I am remembering when I first learned HTML and had a website that used every single random feature HTML was capable of, and more once I discovered the joys of JavaScript.

    source
• UNWILLING_PARTICIPANT@sh.itjust.works ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Agree with the article (and the 10 other ones I’ve already read on the topic) but Paul Graham’s website looks like ass on mobile as of 2024. I couldn’t even figure out how to get to the content, at least on cursory examination.

  source
• No1@aussie.zone ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I.d rather take any website than being continuously forced to download apps, or being told to go to Facebook for some business’s information.

  There’s 2 things a website should respect - simple do it more often -, and not doing these will earn you my wrath:

  • you should be able to zoom/shrink text. Some websites have things so locked down, I can never read their teeny tiny text. (I’ll leave alone the original intent of the web of separating presentation from content for another day).
  • Back button should take you back to the previius ‘page’. Except now I’m terrified to use it because you’re showing all your pages on 1 page, so who knows where I’ll end up.

  source
• snowe@programming.dev ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I’ve been saying this for years. My site only has a few lines of javascript. the rest is pure html and css, and it’s very simple. tylerthrailkill.com

  source

  • nitefox@sh.itjust.works [bot] ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Your theme toggle is confusing, it shows the sun when the dark mode is enabled and vice versa

    source

    • jadero@programming.dev ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      There was a thread elsewhere asking whether a toggle should show current state or the state desired. There was enough disagreement that it quickly became apparent that, whatever else the toggle does, there should be something external to the toggle showing the possible states, indicating which way to move the toggle regardless of toggle appearance.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • qaz@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      It did nothing when clicking it the first time and only changed the second time I clicked it

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • ChairmanMeow@programming.dev ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Strange, it’s the exact opposite for me. Moon in dark mode, sun in light mode.

      source
    • fd93@programming.dev ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Hey - the poster isn’t actually the author. That would be me! Thanks for the feedback though. I normally just use Dark Reader for switching theme.

      source
    • snowe@programming.dev ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Hm. what browser are you on? It is showing sun for me on light mode. Image

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • SmartmanApps@programming.dev ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      In dark mode you press it to go light mode, and in light mode you press it to go dark mode, but yeah, strictly speaking should’ve used a button rather than a switch for that usage.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • owenfromcanada@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Same–I use a line or two of PHP to avoid duplicating common header/footer elements, but it’s otherwise HTML and CSS (no JS at all).

    owenfromcanada.com

    source
• Phoenix3875@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Static websites can be beautiful and easy to use without being complex.

  PG’s blog and HN can definitely use some CSS tweaks. I can’t remember how many times I clicked the wrong thing in HN.

  On the other hand, it’s easy to get reader mode/custom CSS/alt frontend working for such websites, so maybe it’s alright after all.

  source
• MonkderZweite@feddit.ch ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  For style examples, take Paul Graham’s site

  Nope, doesn’t display nothing with no JS on mobile.

  source
• frezik@midwest.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Hidden benefit: never having a cookie acceptance popover, because you don’t have cookies.

  source
• singularity@lemmy.ml ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I made mine with Hugo. It’s super simple and looks great.

  source
• stoy@lemmy.zip ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I have had an account on Deviantart for almost 20 years, and up untill last year I used to upload my photos to my gallery there.

  However over the years it has only gotten worse, it is slow, annoying and have had features removed that I wanted.

  So last year, I set up a simple menu system and started generating photo galleries in digiKam, and upload galleries there instead, and it is soo much more responsive.

  The menu I wrote is built in HTML and CSS, the galleries digiKam exports for me do use Javascript but only to aid in navigating the galleries with the arrow keys, so everything loads instantly.

  When I publish new galleries I do need to edit the HTML code in the menu (and one line in the gallery) but it is as easy as I can make it while still giving me some options.

  source

  • mox@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The menu I wrote is built in HTML and CSS, the galleries digiKam exports for me do use Javascript but only to aid in navigating the galleries with the arrow keys, so everything loads instantly.

    I love sites like this. Fully functional with plain HTML and CSS. JavaScript used only for optional enhancements. Fast, light, and trustworthy.

    source

    • stoy@lemmy.zip ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Exactly, even now after half a year of using it, I am blown away by how fast it loads, and I love how I know exactly what is going on when it loads.

      I even tried it on my phone, and the galleries have a responsive design, but better yet, they recognize swipes, making it easy to navigate on phones and tablets

      source
  • Gloria@sh.itjust.works ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    How do you solve the discoverability issue? A platform. Gives you some place where people could stumble upon you, while a website is an island in the middle of an ocean. That people had to actively browse to. Do you crosspost your new work no more to get the word out? I find it hard to believe that people would like to browse to x differnt websites to see if an artist has new works, only to find out that they don’t. To find new artist a central place or a free like a platform can provide seems to be nearly impossible to replace.

    source

    • stoy@lemmy.zip ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I don’t really use it for advertising, I have actively added the directory to the robots file and requested that search engines not index the page, I like it being hidden, but available for me to show people on their own computer, I also have a link to the page on my CV under hobbies.

      source
    • jadero@programming.dev ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I find it hard to believe that people would like to browse to x different websites to see if an artist has new works, only to find out that they don’t.

      RSS FTW!

      Every site I’ve ever created or been involved with in even the tiniest capacity has supported RSS. Sometimes it was enabled just to shut me up.

      I’m not sure how to better promote the use of RSS and get people to use feed readers, but I think it is the answer to at least that particular issue.

      My personal opinion is that a “platform” should really be just a collection of searchable and categorized feeds with it’s own feed. That way there is both discoverability and the ability for individuals to construct their own personal feed on their own personal device (no server required!) while staying abreast of new feeds on the master feed aggregation “platform.”

      There are innumerable ways for people to get their own content into something that supports RSS and that feed could be easily submitted to the master feed aggregation “platform” to deal with the discoverability issue. For example, Mastodon and most compatible systems support RSS and registration is child’s play on any server that allows public registration.

      In fact, the “platform” could set up a crawler to automatically discover RSS feeds. If the author has done the metadata right, the results would even be automatically categorized.

      Done right, the “platform” might actually run on a pretty small server, because it would be linking to sites, and only pulling summaries from them.

      Even comments could be supported with a little creativity. As I said, there are innumerable ways for people to get their own content out there. If there were a standard metadata tag “comment: <link to article or another comment>”, some fancy footwork could produce a threaded discussion associated with a particular article, even if the original author has no internal commenting system. (And my favoured internal comment system would permit nothing but pure HTTPS links to the commenters own content, extracting a short summary for display.)

      Side note: I acquired a domain explicitly for the purpose of setting up such a feed aggregation “platform.” Now that I’m retired, I’m slowly working on creating it. Everything is highly experimental at this point and, to be honest, shows no visible progress to that end, but that is my ultimate goal.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • projectmoon@lemm.ee ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Where are you uploading galleries? Just your own HDD connected to a static website?

    source

    • stoy@lemmy.zip ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Currently I borrow space on my dad’s web host, he wasn’t using it and was ok with me doing it.

      source
    • lemmyvore@feddit.nl ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Not OP but I would use a CDN like bunny.net. It’s cheap and you get geo redundancy and all kinds of perks with it.

      You can set the Bunny CDN to pull from your home server or you can upload your files to a Bunny storage and it can pull from there so it doesn’t matter if your home server is on or not.

      I’m currently running only the dynamic parts at home (CMS, generators etc.) and I “host” all the static generated stuff on there.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• Montagge@kbin.earth ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  All websites should strive to be like rockauto.com

  source

  • kurwa@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I’ll counter with lingscars.com

    source
• litchralee@sh.itjust.works ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I’m a fan of Pelican for static blog generation from Markdown files. Separating template and content into CSS/HTML and md files, and having it all in a Git repo for version control, is only a few hundreds of kilobytes. Lightweight to work on, and lightweight to deploy. It’s so uncomplicated, I can probably pick right back up if I left it alone for ten years.

  source

  • owenfromcanada@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I’ve found GetSimple to have similar advantages. It’s not as much a “static” site generator, but it uses flat XML storage for content instead of a database, so I can back it up in a git repo and deploy by just copying files.

    source
• LinearArray@programming.dev ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I love simple sites, takes less resources to load & lightweight.

  source
• henfredemars@infosec.pub ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I love simple sites, but I feel that there’s something to be said for design philosophy vs tooling.

  Take vanilla WordPress for example. I find it relatively easy to manage static content, especially when running it in a container to categorically prevent dependency concerns. Is it overkill for a simple site? Perhaps, but does it work and is it easy to use? It’s possible to use these tools to manage a mostly static, text based, minimal to no script website. The key is recognizing the value of that simplicity and providing that simple to read, simple to use experience without distractions.

  WordPress will never be as simple and performant as a truly static site, but we can do a lot to cut down the cognitive load, and we should.

  source

  • owenfromcanada@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    If you want the ease and functionality of WordPress, but you plan to have a relatively simple site, there are other CMS options that are lighter weight and easier to work with. I’ve used GetSimple for years with some of my sites, it’s much more performant and easier to maintain. And the non-technical folks that manage content actually found it easier to use than WordPress.

    source