This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
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.
I love this.
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?
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.
This fucken rules
I wish web browsers had markdown support. At least for basics like links, headers, bold, etc.
I think everyone can agree the no-html club is insane. Why not just a reduced version, so you can actually do stuff like links?
I think because in 10 or so years, there might be a new standard that breaks the site again. Or makes it unusable.
TXT walkthroughs are still used for a reason. Its much harder to break txt files over decades.
All that is assuming someone still wants to read your txt but that is besides the point.
everyone
I am someone and I don't agree. You can say the same thing about no JS folks.
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.
I always loved text stuff. The old rogue games were awesome.
Gemini protocol is fab btw. Come join the tildeverse
