Really? I've always viewed plain HTML sites in the complete opposite way. They tend to have really good, well thought-out content. There's no filler or clickbait with them.
Really? I've always viewed plain HTML sites in the complete opposite way. They tend to have really good, well thought-out content. There's no filler or clickbait with them.
Excessive CSS is, well, excessive. That said, a tiny pinch of CSS goes a long way towards making a page readable and aesthetic.
On LWN there is unnecessary and redundant metadata accentuated!
Everything on HN is clearly thought out, and almost nothing on LWN is.
Ditto. Maybe I loaded the page yesterday. What does '1 hour ago' mean? Was it updated by JavaScript? Is it an hour from now, or from yesterday, or what?
Give me a timestamp, and I know.
"N minutes ago" is compact and does not require any client-side JS to provide an unambiguous value.
At least LWN includes the timezone, which is a step ahead of most of the sites I've used.
I love that phrase for all it implies about the point of view of the user thereof — to my knowledge, every site is an HTML site.