The revived No JS Club celebrates websites that don’t use Javascript, the powerful but sometimes overused code that’s been bloating the web and crashing tabs since 1995. The No CSS Club goes a step further and forbids even a scrap of styling beyond the browser defaults. And there is even the No HTML Club, where you’re not even allowed to use HTML. Plain text websites!

The modern web is the pure incarnation of evil. When Satan has a 1v1 with his manager, he confers with the modern web. If Satan is Sauron, then the modern web is Melkor [1]. Every horror that you can imagine is because of the modern web. Modern web is not an existential risk (X-risk), but is an astronomic suffering risk (S-risk) [2]. It is the duty of each and every man, woman, and child to revolt against it. If you’re not working on returning civilization to ooga-booga, you’re a bad person.

A compromise with the clubs is called for. A hypertext brutalism that uses the raw materials of the web to functional, honest ends while allowing web technologies to support clarity, legibility and accessibility. Compare this notion to the web brutalism of recent times, which started off in similar vein but soon became a self-subverting aesthetic: sites using 2.4MB frameworks to add text-shadow: 40px 40px 0px hotpink to 400kb Helvetica webfonts that were already on your computer.

I also like the idea of implementing “hypotext” as an inversion of hypertext. This would somehow avoid the failure modes of extending the structure of text by failing in other ways that are more fun. But I’m in two minds about whether that would be just a toy (e.g. references banished to metadata, i.e. footnotes are the hypertext) or something more conceptual that uses references to collapse the structure of text rather than extend it (e.g. links are includes and going near them spaghettifies your brain). The term is already in use in a structuralist sense, which is to say there are 2 million words of French I have to read first if I want to get away with any of this.

Republished Under Creative Commons Terms. Boing Boing Original Article.

  • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zipEnglish
    0·
    1 month ago

    No HTML should rather do all-Commonmark instead, imo. Background color and text width & stuff should not be your (the creators) business but my (the users) business only. But some basic styling is nice.

    • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      0·
      1 month ago

      i guess Commonmark is the same thing as Markdown?

      in that case, this is why i love the fediverse (especially lemmy) so much: comments and posts are simple markdown.

      it comes quite close to the principle of distributing content in the way of markdown articles.

  • Absaroka@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    1 month ago

    I do wonder if we’re going to see some websites popping up that kind of hit the reset button on social media and go back to smaller communities of folks with something in common.

    I kind of miss the days of actually having online conversations with folks you know are real people (not bots), that aren’t trying to be an influencer, or get famous, or some how many money off your interactions.

      • I Cast Fist@programming.devEnglish
        0·
        1 month ago

        The main downside is that you need a specific browser, or an extension for your average browser, to load gemini sites.

        • Frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          0·
          1 month ago

          And they purposely hobbled certain things people want, like inline links and images. Some clients will do it anyway, but it’s against the collective wishes of the developers.

          If I wanted to track people on Gemini, I could totally do it. It’d just be in a more server-to-server way than how its evolved on HTTP (pixel trackers and such).

    • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      1 month ago

      Is there any way to go back to running these things on an old Dell in the corner of a bedroom next to a fire extinguisher?

      That’s when we have truly won

    • meejle@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      1 month ago

      I think it’ll happen, but I don’t think it’s happening yet.

      The unease is already there (“the internet used to be a place”/“why isn’t the internet fun any more?” sentiments and #OldWeb #SlowWeb hashtags), but I don’t think people are ready to do anything about it.

      I’m only one guy, with a small internet following, but I recently had a go at launching a small “Gaymers” webring (well, a simplified version of one). I promoted it on my socials, I laid out why I think it’s a good idea, I paid to “Blaze” it on Tumblr – I even emailed some like-minded creators directly.

      I rewrote the webpage multiple times, to try to make it more persuasive and more concise. I added a contact form in case people felt uncomfortable emailing me. I loosened the rules to allow commercial websites, as long as they were still independent. I worked hard on the widget and incorporated feedback (made it respect prefers-reduced-motion and made a static version for sites where animation would feel out of place).

      I got some good feedback; lots of people said it was interesting, and a good idea. But literally no one joined or expressed any interest in joining. 🤷‍♂️

      I’m going to have one more go at promoting it next time I’ve got money to spare, but I’ll most likely end up quietly deleting it along with any evidence it existed, because a webring of one is fucking embarrassing. 💀

      I guess if you build it, they will not necessarily come lmao

      • jjjalljs@ttrpg.networkEnglish
        0·
        1 month ago

        I love this idea. Do you mind if I promote it with some queer folks I know?

        Myself I’m pretty straight and don’t have a website, but maybe one day.

      • mesa@piefed.socialEnglish
        0·
        1 month ago

        You may have more luck with neocities and their sites. Lots of webrings around there and a lot of people having fun.

      • MagicShel@lemmy.zipEnglish
        0·
        1 month ago

        I’ve been thinking about something like this but I’m not gay or really much of a gamer any more, so… different webrings I guess.

      • TerHu@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        0·
        1 month ago

        i love the idea of hosting sites as part of a ring, but i don’t love the idea of having to add my full name and address in the about section, which i’d be legally required to do… i think that’s part of the issue for some people at least.

          • Jesus_666@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            1 month ago

            “Legally required”, so they’re seeing it in the local laws. Some countries require websites to disclose who operates them.

            For example, in Germany, websites are subject to the DDG (Digitale-Dienste-Gesetz, “digital services law”). Under this law they are subject to the same disclosure requirements as print media. At a minimum, this includes the full name, address, and email address. Website updated by companies or for certain purposes can need much more stuff in there.

            Your website must have a complete imprint that can easily and obviously be reached from any part of the website and is explicitly called “imprint”.

            These rules are meaningless to someone hosting a website in Kenya, Australia, or Canada. But if you run a website in Germany you’d better familiarize yourself with them.

  • ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    1 month ago

    JavaScript, AJAX, and modern web frameworks have pushed us away from displaying information in a pure and clean way. We need to go back to a better time!

    Looks at no-HTML websites

    Shit, we’ve gone back too far!

    • B-TR3E@feddit.orgEnglish
      0·
      1 month ago

      CSS on the other hand is quite essential to separate layout from content. Which is a good thing, so I can’t really think of a reason for a “no-CSS” rule. Specifically if you can use inline styles as well but in a way more messy way.

        • B-TR3E@feddit.orgEnglish
          0·
          1 month ago

          Oh, come on. You really want some at least readable output. Things like image borders, consistently positioned images/diagrams, line breaks and page borders. Some whitespace and indentations, too. You just can’t read a couple of pages full of unformatted raw text without massive eye fatigue. I’m all for dumping JS and excessive frameworks, I’d prefer well-formed XHTML over any of that clients-side scripted crap, but totally rejecting CSS is pointless zealotry.

            • B-TR3E@feddit.orgEnglish
              0·
              1 month ago

              I don’t think. You can’t prove I do! Leave me alone. You’re one of them! I knew it all the time.

            • B-TR3E@feddit.orgEnglish
              0·
              1 month ago

              Yes , I can read books. I even read one or two of the 1200 around me. Those with the fuckpics and some of the funnier ones, like “Phänomenologie des Geistes” by Hegel. I wouldn’t have if they had been layouted using browser standards.

                • B-TR3E@feddit.orgEnglish
                  0·
                  1 month ago

                  That’s not even convincing pedantery. Nobody would assune that a browser’s standard style might be an RFC, IETF- or in any way official standard,

          • Frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
            0·
            1 month ago

            Some people haven’t lived through the time when HTML layout was done through nested tables, and it shows.

      • howrar@lemmy.caEnglish
        0·
        1 month ago

        I think the idea is that you keep the layout as simple as possible such that you don’t need any code for it, css or otherwise.

      • sik0fewl@lemmy.caEnglish
        0·
        1 month ago

        I know that’s what CSS is supposed to do, but I’m not sure many people use it that way.

  • Sentient Loom@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    0·
    1 month ago

    I love this. I’m a little jealous, though. I thought I was being “bare-bones” when I remade my website with PHP & XML (no framework or database). What would they think about a python app that delivers plaintext or html? Is that still kosher for the no-js gang? Or does it have to be static files?

    • mesa@piefed.socialEnglish
      0·
      1 month ago

      Dunno. Give it a shot and see how it goes!

      Personally I would just set nginx + translator that would push the site into different formats if I wanted it long term. Just dump the resultant files, set up a website.cool/xxx.txt and push it out there.

      • Sentient Loom@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        0·
        1 month ago

        I see they have a SFW requirement. And while my site is currently SFW, I won’t guarantee that it will remain so.

        Still, it’s at least making me consider cutting out all the zurb-foundation stuff, since that’s the only JS I have, and the site is simple enough that it doesn’t really need it.

    • jaybone@lemmy.zipEnglish
      0·
      1 month ago

      I’d be down with the no-html crowd if they made one exception to allow anchor tags. A web without links sounds not so usable.

  • AmidFuror@fedia.io
    0·
    1 month ago

    I am in the “whistling into the phone handset on a dialup connection is the purest form of online communication” club.

  • the_wiz@feddit.orgEnglish
    0·
    1 month ago

    Just to mention it:

    gopher://sdf.org

    There is no better place for plain and real content

    • tehBishop@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      0·
      1 month ago

      Those websites are amazing, thank you.

      I checked the source to find the song only to realized I already had it in my playlist 😂