- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
The web is fucked and there’s nothing we can do about it. Kev Quirk looks back fondly at Web 1.0.
The web is fucked and there’s nothing we can do about it. Kev Quirk looks back fondly at Web 1.0.
As usual for these people, they seem to hate people with disabilities or those simply older. You know what Web 1.0 “design” (there’s a reason for the scare-quotes, properly designed sites were of course a thing) was? Utterly inaccessible. I won’t cry a single tear for all these horrible unreadable designs, and I barely even have issues (I mainly get overly distracted and annoyed by movement, I disable GIF animations by default and have “prefers reduced motion” active), but for people with more serious issues, it was/is way worse. Now granted, there’s still horrible inaccessible shit on the web today, but it’s far better than it was and especially far better than what these old-web defenders seem to cry to return.
And the best thing? People tend to get worked up when you say you’d like to consume the content without annoying shit. When it’s about JS, everyone applauds you “Yeah, fuck those JS only sites, we want basic text!” but when you say you want basic text without 50000 moving and blinking things? “Fuck you for wanting a sterile web where everything is boring”
/rant
Living somewhere now where many of the local websites are terribly dated and while the initial nostalgia factor was nice the lack of functionality/accessibility is seriously a problem. Not to say you can’t make a functional/accesible site with old web standards, but some things changed for a reason.
The article acknowledges this in the conclusion (emphasis mine):
Accessibility wasn’t the main topic discussed in the article. It was mostly pointing out that the current web is too centralised.
That’s part of the problem. All these rants about the glory of Web 1.0 are ignoring the fact that Web 1.0 wasn’t usable for anybody with accessibility issues and the modern web is better for them. A tiny acknowledgement at the bottom of their rant shows how they value accessibility lower than all of their other concerns.
The article wasn’t really about Web 1.0 as much as it was about the time that Web 1.0 was around. The author could remove “Web 1.0” and replace it with “late 1990s to early 2000s Internet”.
No, thats just the angle that the article wanted to take. Just because it ignores an aspect of something doesn’t mean that its position is moot.
Are you asking for every article ever to have a section discussing accessibility? I’d rather we let the author speak their mind, and focus on what they want to say.
No. I’m asking that when they complain about how the modern web is “fucked” and web 1.0 was better, they don’t try to act like that is an absolute, since that’s an opinion that is not widely applicable.
Ignoring part of a topic makes your argument weaker.
Again, to write an article means to cut out things that don’t matter to the core argument. You’re asking for the writer to complete a thesis.
And again, this is an opinion piece, not a well developed thesis. What you are asking for is both unreasonable and impractical when writing an opinion piece.
Out of curiosity, I have always thought text only web pages would have been way more accessible at the time were RSS was still a thing, then the blinking ad ridden pages you get nowadays.
You tell me that wasn’t a thing?
a) RSS is still a thing, I use it every day.![](https://lemmy.cwagner.me/pictrs/image/e93e9239-3052-4d1d-a12d-9ea3b7c4cbe2.webp)
b) This author talks about a different kind of webpages that are “weird and quirky”. This is not exactly text only:
edit:
c) Ads are easily blocked. “Design” is much harder to fix. I rarely ever see anything blinking on modern pages, but I also use uBlock Origin everywhere, and uMatrix on desktop.