• he/they

Autistic and bisexual.

Never sure what I'm meant to put in this sort of thing for personal blogs and the like.


hthrflwrs
@hthrflwrs

What's the funniest website? Not the website which contains the funniest content, but the website which itself is funny, through concept, execution, or just plain incompetence


micolithe
@micolithe

One of my favorite pizza places in northwest new jersey, Carmines pizza dot biz

Internet archive link from 2016, since they've gone the squarespace route in the years since


lexyeevee
@lexyeevee

of websites designed under the following constraints:

  • everyone has a 1024×768 monitor, probably. if their monitor is a bit bigger then that's fine there'll just be some extra space

  • since everyone has the same size monitor, we can simply position everything at a fixed point on the page

  • half the time, this was only checked in IE6 — which accepted plain numbers as lengths in CSS, which all other browsers ignore. i'll leave you to imagine the potential fallout here

it might just be that someone made a mid-00's wysiwyg editor that placed everything absolutely, because that's an easy way to design one, and we didn't have flexbox or grid yet. this particular website blames its crimes on homestead, but i have the inkling it's not solely to blame

but yeah every so often i stumble upon one of these fascinating artifacts, a website built like a physical paper pamphlet


stephen-fox
@stephen-fox

My first real piece of web design as opposed to 'temporary' site designs that were left to rot and actually don't tend to look bad aside from a lack of max-width on text meaning on a modern browser when viewed on PC will usually have painfully long text widths was done in a table (Because 2001 GeoCities. Everything was either Tables or Frames and most people hated the browsing experience of Frames - They just seemed to break the back button on browsers sometimes), I believe it was designed to look good on 1024x768 and checked to make sure it worked on 800x600 because, well, 2001. (It might have been the reverse. Again, 2001, but since I'm sure I was using 1024x768 at that point I probably designed it to look good on that resolution and made sure it was compatible with 800x600)

It was also designed so that on the target resolution you had the entire layout fit on a single, maximized, browser window. Meaning the part of the table that had the site's contents rather than the '15 year-olds should not be making websites' gubbins that adorned Geocities site design - The Weather In Hell was probably the most fun of the off-site plugins I used - was designed to scroll separately from the browser winder.

This is comically tiny on modern monitors - I think the viewport after adjusting is 400 pixels wide (with a table data width of 480 pixels) - But I swear it looked good at the time, and it had the effect of having the content scroll independently of navigation (Along with nonsense like "I hugged vivi") without CSS (It was a 2001 GeoCities page. None of them used CSS) or inflicting Frames on people.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @hthrflwrs's post:

in reply to @lexyeevee's post:

notably, homestead had an online java-based drag-and-drop editor for ages - dating as far back as the early 00s. it was a shithouse nightmare to use and spat out absolute insanity. this page looks like the dying breaths of said editor, or one of its redesigns over the years.

also fixed-resolution websites are actually goated don't @ me or whatever. pixel perfect everything plz.

online drag and drop in early 00s holy crap that's wild. i cannot even imagine the crimes it must've produced. i remember dunking on dreamweaver for its horrendous output as far back as like 99

i'll allow websites designed like they're for handhelds as long as you lean into it. give me border-image and a little spinning pixel-art chevron when i hover something and put a super game boy border around it when my screen is too big. and notably don't have text start to overlap when viewed on the wayback machine

dreamweaver was soooo bad about it too yeah. i think at one point i viewed the source of something i had made with homestead and it was such a mess i had no clue how to even modify it lmfao

Dreamweaver's html output may have been dogshit but it was useful for real-time previews of hand-coded HTML if you happened to have a copy because your college course inexplicably required it.

(I think the evolution of what I've used for writing HTML was notepad, Dreamweaver but not using any of the WYSIWYG features, the same code-oriented text editor I used for Java at college, and then back to notepad. I really need to get hold of a modern code-oriented text editor, I miss the colours telling me if I've remembered to close my tags or string value or not)