| ▲ | Yhippa 4 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||
> I would be careful with calling that kind of design function over style. Why? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | Esophagus4 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
For one, it is awful on mobile. We can have bare, simple sites while still making them accessible. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | MajorBee 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
I, for one, found reading the text under the News section quite difficult to read. The combination of the font color and the spacing/kerning made it all appear like a character soup to me. It's possible this is something that has variable impact across populations though. Generally speaking though, I do think trying to paint 90s websites as some sort of utopian ideal of function and design is purely an exercise in nostalgia and nothing else. It is entirely possible to make fast, responsive, accessible, well-designed rich websites today, all without writing a word of JavaScript (not that including JS by itself is bad or anything). Do not mistake anti-user functions like heavy weight analytics and user tracking libraries, or poorly optimized and ill-architected code bundles as the current "state of the art". | |||||||||||||||||||||||