Also, many users only know older versions of html; ANLucas's site is HTML4. Personally, I like many of the older styles, but I do agree, too often it compromises usability. (hopefully mine is OK)
I just wanted to make something SIMPLE. I'm tired of loading 2 megabytes of javascript for every website. You can communicate without all that, I made a nice 1993-style site. No CSS? No in-line styles? No client side scripting? No Problem! As far as I knowe the only modern tag I have is a Meta element needed for the page to display properly in mobile browsers. (Hit a character-limit; more to come)
(C ontinued from previous post.) Also, I see few differances between a modern site & a late 90's site. There's a menu, usually on the left of the screen or at the top of the screen. Below that's content. There have been changes in taste, but saying an old web page is "ugly" because it uses a tan background or a purple menu is like saying a 70's house is ugly because it has shag carpet. (Sorry for the long reply.)
@websitering whoa, I didn't want to offend you. In fact, I like your site and its simplicity and purely commented on bloated websites with markup that's been deprecated for years. What's the difference between 2MB of JS and 2MB of GIFs? (and yes, a 70's house IS ugly)
No offence; just lots to say. :-) <- I would've put this on my other post, but there was no room. Can't see a late 90's site having 2MB of gifs; average page size was 50k, including images. I also get a bit miffed when sites require js for basic navigation. As for the house, it's a matter of tastes, which change over time. A design can work from an architectual standpoint, even if the colors are dated.
Actually, I do use br & tt tags, which only became an official part of HTML around 1995. Just looked it up. I don't know if they existed beforehand. HTML 4 stayed around a long time because xhtml offered few advantages over it. HTML 5 does have nice new features, like the ability to embed video w/o an applet (or RealPlayer/Quicktime/Windows Media Player,) so it's catching on.
its because neocities was basically trying to revive geocities but people got too nostalgic that they decided to make their site geocities style
Also, many users only know older versions of html; ANLucas's site is HTML4. Personally, I like many of the older styles, but I do agree, too often it compromises usability. (hopefully mine is OK)
I just wanted to make something SIMPLE. I'm tired of loading 2 megabytes of javascript for every website. You can communicate without all that, I made a nice 1993-style site. No CSS? No in-line styles? No client side scripting? No Problem! As far as I knowe the only modern tag I have is a Meta element needed for the page to display properly in mobile browsers. (Hit a character-limit; more to come)
(C ontinued from previous post.) Also, I see few differances between a modern site & a late 90's site. There's a menu, usually on the left of the screen or at the top of the screen. Below that's content. There have been changes in taste, but saying an old web page is "ugly" because it uses a tan background or a purple menu is like saying a 70's house is ugly because it has shag carpet. (Sorry for the long reply.)
@websitering whoa, I didn't want to offend you. In fact, I like your site and its simplicity and purely commented on bloated websites with markup that's been deprecated for years. What's the difference between 2MB of JS and 2MB of GIFs? (and yes, a 70's house IS ugly)
No offence; just lots to say. :-) <- I would've put this on my other post, but there was no room. Can't see a late 90's site having 2MB of gifs; average page size was 50k, including images. I also get a bit miffed when sites require js for basic navigation. As for the house, it's a matter of tastes, which change over time. A design can work from an architectual standpoint, even if the colors are dated.
Actually, I do use br & tt tags, which only became an official part of HTML around 1995. Just looked it up. I don't know if they existed beforehand. HTML 4 stayed around a long time because xhtml offered few advantages over it. HTML 5 does have nice new features, like the ability to embed video w/o an applet (or RealPlayer/Quicktime/Windows Media Player,) so it's catching on.
Sorry my responce yesterday was so strong; I'm embarrased I wrote it. :(
it's alright :) but please don't explain the history of HTML to me.
Ok. :)