[mattmanser]

So, an outsider's perspective:

1. It loads super quick

2. The list of articles is clear and easy to scan

3. There aren't a shit ton of adverts

4. There are no bloody popups, cookie notices, donate banners, etc.

5. The entire page doesn't load, me start reading then suddenly completely greyed out with an overlay because of badly implemented 4

6. No auto-playing videos that are impossible to find to stop

If this is 90s web design that's "a train wreck in slow motion" and "gloriously imperfect", can we all go back to the 90s please?

[chubot]

Yeah it's more usable than 95% of the websites I visit, e.g. pretty much every news site, Reddit, etc.

[mr_sturd]

To add to this, it appears to work perfectly without lifting any of my NoScript restrictions.

[tailspin2019]

Is this a perspective on Castanet?

Because there is literally at least one super distracting animated GIF ad in view 100% of the time while I scroll that page (which, on my iPhone, is not exactly easily readable due to lack of responsiveness).

On the OP article I see zero ads but I think that’s possibly my PiHole kicking in (which notable fails to block any of the presumably locally hosted adds on Castanet).

I agree with some of your other points but let’s not go to far :)

[dleslie]

The key with 90s web design is the relative absence of Javascript. There's virtually no asynchronous requests; and Castanet works fine with NoScript, most modern sites do not.

[dylan604]

I understand where you're coming from, but I came from 90s webdev. The gift of aysnc requests was the one true credit I give MS for their contribution to moving the web forward (even if it might have been self-serving). The fact that we no longer had to do full screen refreshes to update one part of the page was glorious. It helped allow the deprecation of frames.

However, just like all good things, people decided if a little is good more would be better. This is why we can't have nice things, but it doesn't mean that the thing itself isn't nice.

[nitrogen]

This goes back to the distinction between web pages/documents (deliver immutable server-side content once, up front) and web apps (lots of back and forth with mutable data on the server). A news website should never be anything except pages, even with interactive content, but it seems almost nobody can resist the urge to treat everything like an app.

[dylan604]

Not every website is a news site, nor is every non-newsite an app. Having a website that functions as a store front and information page so that 90% of the site is static, yet dynamically being able to add things to a cart is an example. Is that an app? But not having to do a full page refresh on a POST to add an item to a cart is glorius.

Just because the webiste in question of this thread is a newsite doesn't mean we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater because it fits this one category.

[djbusby]

I like to think of my App as a collection of Pages. While it does "stuff" we think of implementation Page first.

Then clients say your app is fast and responsive but what they really mean is that we've not built an obese chimera.

[toss1]

Seconded.

Not only that, I didn't even have to touch NoScript - it all apparently loaded perfectly. Wow, it'd be nice if much more of the internet was like this!

[r00fus]

and no paywall!

This site is great!