>Sup Forums would argue that this looks better than modern sites
Defend this travesty of an opinion, Sup Forums.
Sup Forums would argue that this looks better than modern sites
Jacob Parker
Other urls found in this thread:
github.com
s.codepen.io
twitter.com
Noah Allen
I'm pretty sure Sup Forums has never praised the font rendering of Windows.
Ayden Myers
doesn't require 50 nested scripts running
Ryan Long
There's a huge difference between working better and looking better.
Brandon Scott
no javascript
Nathaniel Russell
If you like sites looking like this you probably like going to Drudge Report.
Parker Hall
Doesn't invade your privacy
uses kilobytes of bandwidth instead of megabytes
places function over form. emphasizes information and not content-free tinsel
works on a much wider array of devices, doesn't reinforce the planned-obsolescence cycle
blazing fast even on very weak devices, due to the above low resource usage
simpler and faster to build and debug
so OP, do you have any real argument against this kind of design, other than that you're shallower than modern teenage girls, and care about nothing but how something looks?
Connor Johnson
How it this more functional? Does it even have a search functionality?
Lincoln Davis
I work at amazon (aws really) and i think the current retail site looks like garbage.
Ayden Taylor
Yes.
Jason Price
Simple, consistent UI. Text with links, a few images where needed. No surprises, nothing hidden in a "hamburger menu" that might not even work correctly.
You can easily implement search functionality with Web 1.0 methods, and plenty of sites did, though the screenshot happens to show it behind a link instead of as a search box. Search engines existed back then, yknow.
How does all the junk you find on modern websites, like pointless animations and tracking scrips, enhance functionality?
Owen Gray
What said pretty much.
Even google.com takes longer today to load than it did ten years ago.
Dominic Morris
>How it this more functional? Does it even have a search functionality?
How is it not functional??
Of course it had a search functionality back then, You need to go browse the internet archive.
Zachary Fisher
>search our catalog of over 1 million books
Jordan Turner
Fucking this.
Evan Green
>simple layout
>content readily accessible
looks like it ticks the boxes user
Elijah Edwards
/thread
Jaxon Anderson
Fpbp!
But we do get this influx of winbabbies from Sup Forums, maybe someone have said something from there
Easton Bell
Too many graphics.
Joshua Walker
>simple layout
>loads 10 times quicker
>looks nice and readable on all platforms on all browsers and feels responsive
>doesn't require javascript to load "dynamic" content
>no pointless buttons with slow animations
yeah, I don't see why it's better
Connor Johnson
Are there any guides on making good-looking "modern" websites without a single line of javascript?
Once I've seen pure html thing with some gifs and menus that popped out with smooth animation like your generic 250MB node.js landing page.
Luke Edwards