why did css3 kill the web?

[Koishi Komeiji]

9 hours ago, Dylan Cruz said:

I use mainly HTML + CSS3 and my policy is no JS unless absolutely necessary. Mainly advanced dropdowns and necessary logic. Most of my pages don't have any site JS. Thus, my website loads quickly and is accessible.

Also, I code every line myself. All the PHP, all the CSS, and most of the JS... (sometimes, I do use a small library for a specific task, b/c I hate JS).

And how damn well glad I am that someone like you exists in this world of paltry-paid, mostly South Asian and Eastern European based 'webdevs' that make up so much of the modern web's horrible design since big countries can treat developing ones and ones with messed up politics like even more crap in the guise of getting them a job.

[InterLinked]

3 hours ago, Koishi Komeiji said:

And how damn well glad I am that someone like you exists in this world of paltry-paid, mostly South Asian and Eastern European based 'webdevs' that make up so much of the modern web's horrible design since big countries can treat developing ones and ones with messed up politics like even more crap in the guise of getting them a job.

Yeah, it's kind of ironic. Like, supposedly the web has come so far, and you think back to the 90s when every website was unique and different, and the early 2000s, when a lot also look nice, and today they all look like crap, work like crap, load like crap, and all look the same. So much for progress...

w2k.phreaknet.org is brought to you by all-American sweat and ingenuity!

[TrevMUN]

On 8/7/2020 at 8:35 AM, asdf2345 said:

The old pre-CSS 3 internet looked good as it was is. It wasn't bloated, it loaded fast most of the time, it looked better than most sites do today, and CSS 2 was universal.

Even some really old sites still look good to this day.

Take a guess as to how old this is

Man do I miss the pre-Eclipse version of DeviantArt. I know I'm not the only one. So many pointless and irritating changes, and it broke compatibility with a lot of older browsers. There wasn't any reason for them to overhaul the site design, and they blatantly ignored their userbase.

Then again, that is par for the course for a lot of these places. They know that their users won't stop using their service no matter how much they dislike the overhauls.

Oh the other hand, I'm not sure how much of the bloat and sluggishness can be blamed for CSS3. My personal portfolio page uses both HTML5 and CSS3, but I will admit I made a huge effort to ensure that the site is capable of graceful degradation as far back as IE8. Maybe even earlier. Also, my page doesn't call in a ton of scripts off-site.

That might be the major issue; most of the big sites which are clunky and slow seem like they call from many different resources off the page.  Often NoScript will say there's a half-dozen or more off-site scripts in play. More than that, I think that a lot of these sites have been deliberately sabotaging usability in order to encourage people to use app versions instead. Many of the worst offenders keep hounding you to download their app when you try to visit their site on a mobile device.

One wonders how much that's costing them in terms of hosting and traffic, and how much they could save by focusing on a leaner, faster, more usable design that doesn't require a bunch of off-site services.

[asdf2345]

On 8/7/2020 at 10:35 AM, asdf2345 said:

Even some really old sites still look good to this day.

Take a guess as to how old this is

Was used for 2006-2008