5 ms·

This type of "web" would run perfectly over encrypted networks as well since it would carry much less data. It would solve the problem of cluttered/fluffy web

This type of "web" would run perfectly over encrypted networks as well since it would carry much less data. It would solve the problem of cluttered/fluffy web and insecure/easily-surveilled communications. Being realistic though, this would only serve highly functional computer users seeking simplicity and privacy. A lot of internet users view "beautiful" webpages as a display of trustworthiness and importance. And that's a very important trait if you are a business.

jacquesm 10y ago
The nicer the package, the worse the contents.
username223 10y ago
> A lot of internet users view "beautiful" webpages as a display of trustworthiness and importance. Not so much. A lot of web users like simple, predictable pages. Flyout menus spazzing all over the page, giant headers breaking the space bar, and obscure hamburgers hiding useful features just confuse and annoy people who don't know about CSS element blocking.
- marcus_holmes 10y ago
  Those aren't beautiful pages. We geeks, who can understand the code, decry the complexity of a beautiful page and prefer not to go there. But we're 1% of the audience. The other 99% are used to equating beauty and style with quality. More style == more quality. Less style == less quality. The pages we love because of their simplicity don't do well in the mass market because of their simplicity. I have taken to calling this the "Kardashian Problem" - I don't understand why the Kardashians exist. I am forced to accept that they do exist. Therefore I do not share a worldview with the people who pay money for the Kardashians to exist. The Kardashians are very wealthy, so there are a lot of those people. I am a taste minority, so building things that I like won't make money. I have to build things that the Kardashians would like. I don't understand what they would like, so I must test everything!
  - holografix 10y ago
    I know what you mean. Frankly I think the Kardashians are a force for evil. Promoting selfishness, superficiality and female independence through hyper sexual objectification. Why are they so popular? Total mystery to me.
    - sweeneyrod 10y ago
      "selfishness, superficiality and female independence" One of these things is not like the others.
      - clydethefrog 10y ago
        I hope this is a case of forgetting the Oxford comma.
        mirimir 10y ago
        I was hoping for an erroneous "in" ;)
        narrowrail 10y ago
        I think we can be charitable here; I'm 99% sure most of us would agree with the intent of the OP.
      - jessaustin 10y ago
        The implication seems to be that female independence gained at the price of "hyper sexual objectification" is not as noble as that gained through e.g. hard work and responsibility?
      - pille 10y ago
        "female independence through hyper sexual objectification" is meant as a single element in that list, at least that's how I read it.
      - beaconstudios 10y ago
        I'm not the OP but I read the third item as being "female independence through hyper sexual objectification".

jacquesm 10y ago

The nicer the package, the worse the contents.

username223 10y ago

> A lot of internet users view "beautiful" webpages as a display of trustworthiness and importance. Not so much. A lot of web users like simple, predictable pages. Flyout menus spazzing all over the page, giant headers breaking the space bar, and obscure hamburgers hiding useful features just confuse and annoy people who don't know about CSS element blocking.

marcus_holmes 10y ago
Those aren't beautiful pages. We geeks, who can understand the code, decry the complexity of a beautiful page and prefer not to go there. But we're 1% of the audience. The other 99% are used to equating beauty and style with quality. More style == more quality. Less style == less quality. The pages we love because of their simplicity don't do well in the mass market because of their simplicity. I have taken to calling this the "Kardashian Problem" - I don't understand why the Kardashians exist. I am forced to accept that they do exist. Therefore I do not share a worldview with the people who pay money for the Kardashians to exist. The Kardashians are very wealthy, so there are a lot of those people. I am a taste minority, so building things that I like won't make money. I have to build things that the Kardashians would like. I don't understand what they would like, so I must test everything!
- holografix 10y ago
  I know what you mean. Frankly I think the Kardashians are a force for evil. Promoting selfishness, superficiality and female independence through hyper sexual objectification. Why are they so popular? Total mystery to me.
  - sweeneyrod 10y ago
    "selfishness, superficiality and female independence" One of these things is not like the others.
    - clydethefrog 10y ago
      I hope this is a case of forgetting the Oxford comma.
      - mirimir 10y ago
        I was hoping for an erroneous "in" ;)
      - narrowrail 10y ago
        I think we can be charitable here; I'm 99% sure most of us would agree with the intent of the OP.
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      The implication seems to be that female independence gained at the price of "hyper sexual objectification" is not as noble as that gained through e.g. hard work and responsibility?
    - pille 10y ago
      "female independence through hyper sexual objectification" is meant as a single element in that list, at least that's how I read it.
    - beaconstudios 10y ago
      I'm not the OP but I read the third item as being "female independence through hyper sexual objectification".