We are still using 88x31 buttons
ultrasciencelabs.com
ultrasciencelabs.com
That and how buttons from 30 years ago work with 4k monitors.
*saturates my Gigabit pipe*
Thank you so much - on the flip side, my students may dislike you because they're going to get a lecture on how the web used to be!
> Some examples of sites sharing some thematic elements spanning over 25 years:
> (…)
> They all feature 88x31 buttons in some capacity and those buttons reflect the website and it's designer in some way.
My stock answer was, "Good point, the 88c31 seems overkill for a button. But... AI isn't great for detecting button pushes."
Then, I realized the page was just a rant about web buttons and didn't actually show example web buttons.
Article really could have used an example or two.
It even has some examples of other size images inline, but none of the titular 88x31 buttons. I found it odd.
Colbert had Lawrence Lessig on his show and (obv in-character) said something along the lines of
> I would be very angry, and possibly litigious, if anyone out there takes this interview right here and remixed it with some great dance beat.
yes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvvhDngERXo
with a followup remix of the episode where he discussed this remix
For some reason, this makes me think of Strong Bad. Probably because of the sbemail "sibbie", in which The Cheat does drop a phat beat under Strong Bad's reading of the email, much to the latter's consternation.
The physical size (on screen) didn't vary by much. If I recall correctly, 72 to 120 dpi dominated until the introduction of Retina/HiDPI displays, and 120 dpi was pushing the limit since scaling wasn't really a thing. (When it was a thing, it tended to be handled by applications where it was important, such as desktop publishing/graphics design applications, and it only extended to the content area.)
Add that to the purpose of these buttons: they were intended to be unobtrusive messages about which browsers were supported, or which browser the site owner prefered. Going bigger would not have much of a point. (That said, they were as obtrusive as heck to those of us using unsupported browsers!)
For example; I remember the heyday of the MadOnion forums (the makers of 3D Mark, before they changed their name to Futuremark) and their users having these massive information-dense signature banners showcasing their PC-specs, 3D-mark scores, OC-info, etc.) with and without animations. Even at the time I remember thinking some of them were over the top and distracting, but people really put their hearts into making those things and it took some skill to make a really good one.
Really good info in the article, enjoyed the read - but as others mentioned, some pictures would have been nice
[1]: https://webb.page/
I think the main bulk of the archives for slurped into the internet archive. I don't know if any of the independent GeoCities archives are still online, but everything that was saved should be in the IA by now.
I grew up with Badgers flying overhead and later on the blink tag and yet this is worse!
Or are you talking about some of the example sites the article links to like http://thombs.com/Dann_1996-06/noframes.htm in which case yeah I get it lol
When you get older, not only do parts of your body head south and start to refuse to co-operate with the rest of you, your eyesight goes badly off track. Its all a bit disconcerting.
I have never been a fan of "dark mode", even when the www didn't exist. Sometimes magazines would go weird and print an article in reverse - white on black. Dramatic effect or some such bollocks. When the fount (a specific instantiation of a typeface) was small enough and the print blead too badly in the specific copy you are reading it became very tricky to read.
Nowadays we have pixels small enough to be much better than ye olde skoole CRT scan lines and a LED screen has a refresh rate that, even in my florescent tube lit lair (not really), is rock solid.
I can read the site but it is not as easy as possible for me and let's face it: a book with a well chosen typeface and fount is a fair standard of readability and legibility. Why not replicate that in a web page?
Why on earth is the text occupying only 1/3 of my screen widthways? When have you seen a book or mag with 1/3 margins?
The fount is a sans job but it is small and white on black which is hard for me. At least it is very thin so that the glare from the white text doesn't go too fuzzy.
Have a look at Wikipedia. There's a good reason for their design choices - they have to worry about everyone and not just their mates.
Magazines almost always have their text in thin columns, because long lines are difficult to follow. Books are also typically 1/3th the width of a typical computer screen for the same reason.
A physical book has a ratio of exactly the opposite of your laptop. Amazon realised this quite quickly and you will note that their readers have a book shape.
Look at this web site (HN) which is used by some of the most vociferous nerds ever (including you and me) and tell me I am talking bollocks! Note the styles, layout, colours in use.
How far removed from white on black text, 1/3 screen width and teenager bedroom looks are we away from?
I use HN in a half window, so the text is roughly the same width as the website here.
White text on a black background in print is indeed harder to read due to the issue of ink bleeding, but on a computer screen it is so much easier on the eyes.