Take your dark mode, which is just about the only nontrivial feature I see on this page. (One could also criticize the low contrast of the appearance and other problems, but that's less relevant to the simplicity thesis you're claiming.)
First, your dark mode is implemented wrong in the lazy corner-cutting way of doing JS post-load instead of the correct way of CSS body classes; so you get the 'flash of white' unavoidably on every page load - just what every dark mode user with their phone to their face at midnight wants to see! (If your solution doesn't work, it doesn't matter if it's 'simple' or 'complex'.)
Second, you implement what is like 3 lines of JS (setting localstorage & dark-mode) by pulling in what looks like an entire interpreter for a custom 'hyperscript' https://hyperscript.org/ language which seems to mostly just offer some sugar over JS; now, maybe you use 'hyperscript' elsewhere for reasonable purposes, but surely pulling in a 96kb (uncached) library solely to run
def saveMode() if first classList.value of <html/> contains 'dark' set localStorage.kkColorMode to 'dark' else set localStorage.kkColorMode to 'light' end end
init if localStorage.kkColorMode is empty set localStorage.kkColorMode to 'light' end if localStorage.kkColorMode is 'dark' add .dark to <html/> end
Third, this binary toggle is a bad way to implement dark mode because it ignores system/browser settings, so if a user has, say, enabled dark-mode on their smartphone OS, they still get served light-mode until they manually enable it; note that some systems change it based on local time/ambient light too, which is quite nice... if websites & apps respect it instead of overriding it. And since localstorage expires and users switch devices, they would have to do so repeatedly. Is this a good thing? A user probably would disagree with the developer who is touting how 'simple' the dark-mode implementation is because they cut corners in handling system settings/auto-dark-mode...