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.
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.
- 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 than what scripts can do, as is hinted in my second point.)
- It’s not unrealistic, since scripts can be turned off by default and enabled selectively when needed. (But were that not the case, it would be reason to use them less, not more.)
I think it’s impossible if you want for things to work. JavaScript is so ubiquitous it’s been baked into the browser since 1995.
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.
Obligatory:
deleted by creator
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.
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.
It was horrible and glorious all at once.
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. https://tylerthrailkill.com
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).
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 at least zoom/shrink text. Some websites have things so locked down, I can never read their teeny tiny text. Fuck you ESPN. Why would you let desktop zoom, and stop it on mobile where my screen is smaller and I most need it? (I’ll leave alone the original intent of the web of separating presentation from content for another day).
- Browser Back button should take you back to the previius ‘page’. I’m terrified to use it because you’re really showing multiple ‘pages’ on 1 real page, so who knows where I’ll end up.
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.
For style examples, take Paul Graham’s site
Nope, doesn’t display nothing with no JS on mobile. While the other two examples seem to be desktop-only. You can do better with only HTML and CSS.
I made mine with Hugo. It’s super simple and looks great.
Hidden benefit: never having a cookie acceptance popover, because you don’t have cookies.
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.
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.
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
Where are you uploading galleries? Just your own HDD connected to a static website?
Currently I borrow space on my dad’s web host, he wasn’t using it and was ok with me doing it.
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.
Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. I am using photoprism for photo management. It doesn’t really support S3 or any CDN. You could use a fuse filesystem or something, but it’s very slow.
It’s probably better to export the photos if you want to make a public presentation gallery. Many image viewers can create static HTML pages for a given set of images, GThumb, DigiKam etc. But it could work with a photo management app too if it has presentation gallery support and can be configured to serve images from a CDN prefix.
The catch with CDN support in dynamic apps is that they need to be aware that you want to use a CDN so they can provide both a dynamic view (of whatever resource you’re trying to cache) so you have something to pull the original from, as well as use the CDN URL for their main pages so they take advantage of the caching.
Alternatively, if they don’t have CDN support, or you want to isolate the dynamic app from the public, if the app makes good static-looking URLs you can scrape it, make static pages and upload that to the CDN.
I recently did this for someone who was using a gallery app that was made with super old MySQL and PHP versions and was super unsafe and inefficient. I used URL-rewriting to make all pages end in .html and .jpg, then scraped it with wget, uploaded the whole thing to CDN and pointed a CNAME of their domain to the CDN domain. The dynamic app now lives on a private server in docker containers which they access over VPN, and when they change stuff I just run a script that takes a new snapshot and uploads it to the CDN.
Definitely a good way to do it. Photoprism supports uploading to WebDAV for sharing. Could front a CDN upload with a web dav server 🤔
All websites should strive to be like rockauto.com
I’ll counter with lingscars.com
I love simple sites, takes less resources to load & lightweight.
I once went to a professional to get a website done (as my ability (read: patience) to code websites had proved inadequate) and they constantly tried to upsell me on just the most stupid bullshit. When I pointed out how a lot of moving parts just means more things that could possibly break they blew me off and acted like it was a completely unreasonable concern. Needless to say ended up using a website builder instead and despite a few small glitches it works pretty well with JS completely disabled.
EDIT: I was particularly concerned with how heavily they were leaning on JS, to the point it flat out wouldn’t load at all for some users. Having JS flair is perfectly fine on the side but when you can’t even get fucking text to load without it, that’s a problem.
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.
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.
