How to make a simple 'vintage' HTML website but that will work on mobile? | Hacker News Reader

How to make a simple 'vintage' HTML website but that will work on mobile?

11 pointsmymythisisthis10 comments

How to make a simple 'vintage' html website but that will work on mobile?

I enjoy that static websites from the early web. I don't need anymore, don't want anymore.

How do I make one that works well on a mobile phone?

What are the best resources to read to do such a simple task?

Best standards for creating a simple static website of today?

View on HN

I would recommend "Web Design in 4 Minutes" to understand how to use HTML/CSS to make something simple, yet elegant.

https://jgthms.com/web-design-in-4-minutes/

First step is just try adding a responsive meta tag to the head of your HTML page:

https://css-tricks.com/snippets/html/responsive-meta-tag/

A great place to write and host the static page is https://repl.it You'll be able to code in the browser IDE, then instantly see the changes reflected at their url, or your custom url. Also a YC company

Sorry if this isn't your question, but it seems too good not to mention for your task.

You don't even need any CSS styling, because the default style with just HTML will work fine on a mobile phone. This one-page document is all you need to know for a simple site.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn/Getting_start...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19179407

Write little CSS as possible, this was the method that i used on my own [0], and as you are at it, try to use little as possible of JS too (in my case i use none)

[0] http://jpg.computer

http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com is a basic start. Looks ok on mobile

Use only elements and CSS properties that were available in 1998.

Don’t use tables, which tend to force minimum widths. Don’t use large images. Everything else should reflow automatically.

Really old vintage sites were just text. Using h1,h2,h3 tags you should have text large enough to be readable. On the other hand is that vintage, or is that archaeological?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com