• jiberish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    100
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    As an amateur web designer in the 90s and early 2000s, this speaks to me. I stopped web development when CSS became popular and I couldn’t wrap my head around it.

    Is there a petition I can sign to scrap all this nonsense modern web progress and go back to that beautiful, dial-up friendly HTML?

    • herrvogel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      71
      ·
      1 year ago

      I stopped doing frontend work when responsive design became important. Super unpleasant work. Now I’m happier at the backend where I don’t have to worry about how my shit looks on the 7 million possible screen sizes people are likely to use. Life is more peaceful here.

        • Kichae@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          41
          ·
          1 year ago

          Have you considered just forcing everyone to access your sites via Internet Explorer 5.5?

        • MagicShel@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          As recently as 6 or 7 years ago I maintained some apps that forced 5.5 compatibility mode. Because they were poorly architected in a shitty framework and no one was willing to do or pay for or train for a rewritten version. They were finally migrating to .NET when I left. It was the govt so they are likely wrapping up that migration now.

      • traches@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Alright hang on now - responsive design is about not excluding people based on the device they’re using. Many people do everything in their lives from a low end cell phone and cutting them out is a shit thing to do. Responsive design and progressive enhancement are objectively good things.

        The tools have gotten better over the past several years, it’s not as hard as it used to be.

        • herrvogel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          ? Who said anything about excluding anything or anyone? I’m just saying I don’t like the work that has to go into making sure nobody’s excluded. In a way, I’m not excluding anyone by excluding everyone now. I quit frontend altogether, left other people to deal with it. At the backend I don’t have to worry about what kind of screen the other end might be using to view the JSON string I sent them. You don’t get “I just looked at your response headers on my 32:9 monitor that I divided into 9 randomly sized tiles and it looks like shit, please fix” calls when you work backend.

      • candyman337@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Modern frameworks make responsive design easier but yes it is still a lot to wrap your head around. I remember building my hs robotics team website in high school right as responsive design was becoming a thing. “WHAT DO YOU MEAN I HAVE TO NEST A CONTAINER IN A CONTAINER I ALREADY HAVE ONE!!!”

        Bless those who came up with flexbox

        • LeafEriksen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          I love to see the occasional flexbox appreciation, since at least for me (someone just getting into Design/Web dev) flexbox changed responsive design from being a totally unfeasible project to being genuinely fun to work on, and sometimes the most exciting part!

        • Haarukkateroitin@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Laughs in frameset!

          Kids nowdays try hard to do with divs what was already possible with framesets.

          Also I feel bad every time I remember that <blink> was taken away from us!

          • smpl@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            What do you mean? I still write my sites in HTML 4.1 and frameset works fine in all the browsers I’ve tried. HTML 4.1 is still a standard, I can only recommend more people use it. HTML5 isn’t really a standard… it’s a “living document”… pff.

            ``

            You’re allowed to <center> things and use `` without shame… or if you really do prefer it, you can still wrap that relative positioned <div> with auto margins in an absolute positioned parent <div> or whatever CSS bullshit makes stuff centered nowadays.

            One thing I always though was very backwards in CSS is the paradigme to make <div> into tables instead of the other way. Tables are an easy and simple way to layout things and if it could degrade into divs you’d have your responsive design making many related CSS standards unnecessary.</div></div></div><table></table></center>

              • smpl@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Oh no you wouldn’t…

                • knocks on door
                • It’s the Wild Web Sheriff!
                • What the… You’ll never catch me!
                • rumble
                • a vase breaks
                • silence
                • Okay, okay I was just kidding. Tables are bad. HTML5 is the future.
                • dot20@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  “And so the Gods (also known as the W3C) spoke down to the Programmers and said: ‘You shall not use tables for non-tabular data.’ And so it was.”

              • smpl@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                In the context of the modern web, I take that as a badge of honor. I’ve build pages using flexbox/grid and I’ve done so only for the sake of responsive layout, because of the way that tables can’t degrade to a bunch of boxes, but a bunch of boxes can by styled to look like a table. It is a convoluted way of doing table layout instead of just using a table.

                • traches@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  A table has semantic meaning: it’s for presenting tabulated data, not for building layouts. That’s why they behave the way they do and require the format they require. Table layouts have always been a hack, it’s just that for awhile there weren’t better options.

                  Again, you are insane if you’re still doing table layouts in 2023.

        • Aloso@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          They still have their place; for example to embed Google Maps or a YouTube video. Generally, whenever you want to embed something from a different website you have no control over, that shouldn’t inherit your style sheets, and should be sandboxed to prevent cross site scripting attacks.

            • Aloso@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Iframes cannot access the main frame’s DOM if the iframe is from a different origin than the main frame, and they never share the same JavaScript execution context, so an iframe can’t access the main frame’s variables etc.

              It’s not required that iframes run in a different process, but I think they do at least in Chrome and Firefox if they’re from a different origin. Also, iframes with the sandbox attribute have a number of additional restrictions, which can be individually disabled when needed.

        • Aa!@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Seems to me they were mostly used to put content inside a scrollable element. Their place has mostly been taken by overflow:auto hasn’t it? I think this is the better way.

        • SixTrickyBiscuits@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I believe Kingdom of Loathing used iframes extensively to achieve what looked like a “dynamic” page long before that was a thing.

      • theangryseal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oooh I loved my inline frames.

        I was so fucking proud of that. My links down the left side, two inline frames neatly in a box on the right, perfectly designed in two versions. One for 800x600, the other for 1024x768.

        I did websites for bands from East Tennessee, one for a weird website for survivors of “satanic ritual abuse”. I thought it was nuts but I made a hundred bucks.

        I wouldn’t even know where to start on the modern web. I’m fine with that too. I lost the passion for it when everyone under the sun wanted me to be their free tech support years ago.

        I remember when I first started on homestead. Seeing my dangling skeleton gifs and my “under construction” banners made me feel like something. There it was, the World Wide Web, and I had my own place on it. Perpetually under construction.

        I used to love browsing geocities and the log in name would be right there in the link. Something like geocities.com/cartman1988

        I’d guess the password and change things around on their page to mess with them. “Hmmm, Cartman eh? Let’s try southpark. I’M IN. Time to photoshop dicks on this dude’s face!”

        To be a kid again.

        Y’all got me all old and nostalgic here. :p

    • swordsmanluke@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Check out Gemini!

      It’s an alternative protocol to HTTP with a focus on simplicity and being much harder to abuse for user tracking.

      It’s still a small community, but growing.

      If you miss the internet of the nineties, there’s some echoes of it here.

    • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I second this request to rewind time back to 90s, I would like to remake few life decisions I made :D

  • mtchristo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The web is beyond bloated.

    The heavy reliance on JavaScript has suck the joy out of browsing the web for me

    • AnonymousLlama@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d say the over exploitation of JavaScript to leverage tracking, interaction and marketing has helped create the poor experiences we now have on web. The underlying technology when used for creating interactive and helpful UIs is very beneficial

      • grue@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Web pages are supposed to be hypertext documents, not “interactive… UIs!”

          • grue@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You’re “downloading an app” anyway, even if it’s JavaScript running in a browser. How do you think the client-side code gets to the client‽

            But yes, I think we need a new version of something like Java Web Start, except with the ability to steam parts of itself as-needed instead of having to download the entire .jar before being able to run. If you’re going to have an app, have an app that has proper libraries for the UI etc. instead of hacking everything on top of a whole bunch of DOM cruft!

            I guess WebAssembly is a step in the right direction, but it’s still too tied to the document viewer known as a “web browser,” for no good reason.

    • swordsmanluke@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      1 year ago

      May I introduce you to the Gemini project?

      It’s a new(ish) protocol for sharing interlinked text documents. It’s intended to sit between Gopher and HTML in terms of complexity and is deliberately, aggressively simple (some might even say crippled) with the intention that it will be nearly impossible to extend the protocol for surveillance capitalism. It’s not trying to replace ye olde WWW, but to provide a human-focused place for text-first, 90’s-style sites to live. …just without the blink tags.

      • Lvxferre@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        …just without the blink tags.

        NOOO! IT IS BROKEN!

        How am I build my cool website without a blinking “Thank You For Reading!”???

  • Murdo Maclachlan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Image Transcription: Meme


    STOP USING CSS

    * HTML WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE GIVEN CLASSES
    * YEARS OF MARKUP yet NO REAL-WORLD USE FOUND for styling beyond <TABLE>
    * Wanted to center content for a laugh? We had a tool for that: It was called “<CENTER>”
    * “Yes please align that content exactly 32.89% left. Please align 59.0px down”
        - Statements dreams up by the utterly deranged

    LOOK at what FRONT-END Devs  have been demanding your Respect for all this time.
    (This is REAL CSS. done by REAL Devs)

    [Three screenshots of CSS code, each one marked with a number of red question marks. The first screenshot has five question marks and reads as follows:]

    h1 {
            font-size: .75em;
            position: absolute;
            bottom: 20px;
            width: 94%;
            left: 2%;
    }
    

    [The second screenshot has eight question marks and reads as follows:]

    *{
        font-size: 30px;
    
    }
        q::before {
      content: "«";
      color: blue;
    ]
    
    q::after {
      content: "»";
      color: red;
    }
    

    [The third screenshot has sixteen question marks and reads as follows:]

    #header ul a:focus, #header ul a:active,
    #header ul a:hover {
        background-color: #5A5A5A;
        outline-color: -moz-use-text-color:
        outline-style: none;
        outline-width: medium;
    }
    

    [The screenshots end.]

    “Hello center that div please”

    They have played us for absolute fools


    I am a human who transcribes posts to improve accessibility on Lemmy. Transcriptions help people who use screen readers or other assistive technology to use the site. For more information, see here.

  • GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

    The web killed the Internet.

    JavaScript killed the web.

    CSS defiled its corpse.

    Honestly and without any trace of irony, I wish CSS would die and be replaced by maybe half a dozen new HTML tags to support a few specific responsive design patterns.

    CSS runs counter to the concept of HTML. Web design used to be inherently user-centric. The designer was not supposed to have much of a say in how it looked on a client’s system, because that was up to the client. The designer only provided high-level hints like “this is a paragraph” or “this is emphasized”. The browser decided how a paragraph should be displayed, which fonts to use, etc.

    Over time, visual designers clawed more and more control from the user, much to the detriment of the entire rest of the world.

    99% of web sites would be better if they conformed to basic semantic markup. Low-level design parameters should not exist on the web.

    It’s a straight line from CSS to Google’s new trusted web bullshit. It’s all about wresting control away from the user and giving it to the site designer. Fuck you, site designer. My eyeballs do not belong to you.

    • nintendiator@feddit.cl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      lol. lmao. What am I even reading?

      The CSS is literally openly served along with the website. One line change in the HTML (in <link ref="stylesheet" .../> allows you to make your own CSS for a site. There’s a world of difference between that and “Google’s new trusted web bullshit”. And you know who sits much closer to Google than HTML and CSS?

      Javascript. That’s who.

      • DarkenLM@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Javascript sits closer to Mozilla than Google. JS was created for the Netscape Navigator, and Netscape created Mozilla.

      • GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        It doesn’t matter if it’s open or closed. The problem is the unnecessary complexity and lack of straightforward and standardized meaning. If you want to customize the way you view the web in general, you will either limit yourself to small changes like ad blockers, or you will need a handcrafted custom CSS for every site you visit. There’s no real standardization in formatting. Everything is just a div with an arbitrary name.

        RSS feeds could address much of this, but it would need to be taken a step further.

    • fkn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I only disagree with you in that for an application, the application designer should choose what an application looks like.

      The argument of if applications should be deployed via web browser is an independent discussion.

      • grue@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Good thing web pages are supposed to be documents and not “applications,” then!

        If you want a goddamn application, go resurrect Java Web Start or something.

        • LittleLordLimerick@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That was true 20 years ago. Things evolve. No one wants to download and install ten million individual apps for every single thing they do on the internet.

          • Itty53@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The irony of people posting on web applications they utilize for their own enjoyment, “applications don’t belong on web browsers” is killing me here.

            There is a portion of the tech industry with their head stuck firmly up their ass and it seems a lot of em hang out in the fediverse. These people would demand we go back to party lines and manual switchboards. Techno-hipsters who are just angry at the next generation who took their BBS internet and actually made the world use it.

            Downvote me, that’s fine. Use that interactivity application on your browser. Go be the very definition of irony. Please.

    • nomadjoanne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      There is also a bit of a design arms race going on here.

      My business has a bloated site with animations, Google fonts, graphic design, etc., etc. Why? Because normie customers expect it and if I don’t have it they’ll go to a competitor that had a more “designed” website.

      If most websites looked as if they were built in the year 2000 we wouldn’t lose much functionality and we’d spend much less resources on this stuff…

      • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because normies customers expect it and I don’t have it they’ll go to a competitor that had a more “designed” website.

        This is exactly where I decided to just not have a website for my business (electrical contractor in a tourist town). I’m already busy enough as is, and it’s just one more aspect that helps filter out knuckleheads that usually end up being more trouble than the money is worth.

        I had intended on creating a basic website that had all of the pertinent information. Then as I started getting into it, everyone had their “design/visual recommendations” and that “a polished website was a testament to the quality of my work.” It kinda dawned on me one day that I’d rather have something basic and functional so that I can focus on what’s important, the actual work. Well, that’s not how the world works anymore, so I said screw it. Now I just tell people I don’t have time for it, and if they take issue with it, find someone else.

    • DrQuint@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I really would like that styling was a part of the structure itself too, but way before then, I’d love for JS and HTML to be coupled closer together. The way Angular/React/etc couple things at render time is just way more straightforward.

      Unfortunately, I can also think of a bajillion reasons why Js should stay decoupled.

      • fkn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If only they actually did that instead of faking it then rendering it afterwards.

        That shadow Dom is a crazy making factory… Although it’s probably better today.

  • BoofStroke@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The problem is that HTML was not designed to be a layout description. Your browser was to decide.

    So, to force HTML to be a layout description rather than simple markup, we have this mess.

    HTML != TeX

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh, got that layout looking all nice and modern?

    Be a shame if somebody… tried to email it!

  • darthfabulous42069@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    You’re never supposed to use pixels in CSS anyway; you should bare minimum use percentages to account for different screen sizes to make the designs responsive and not look terrible on different screen sizes.

    • MagicShel@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The new unit of measure is EM. Which is related to font size somehow. Idk, I might be outdated already. I ran screaming from front end years ago and I won’t even cop to being a full stack developer these days. I’ll lead full stack projects, but I’m not doing the FE dev.

  • kshade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Really though it’s a shame that so many devs still try to treat the web like print where they have full control over the layout at any given time. Even after the death of Flash and the introduction of smartphones and their need for fluid layouts. Meanwhile concepts like progressive enhancement got left behind.

    At least we’ve got flexbox and grid now.

  • Marxine@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    As a frontend dev I hate frontend. CSS is not even the main issue.

    Fuck Jest and having to mock libraries. I’m gonna go backend in Go or something like that ASAP.