75
votes
The small web and minimalist websites - what are your thoughts and experiences?
I'm a supporter and believer in the small web and minimalist websites (i.e. NOT "minimal design" websites, which are not minimalist more often than not).
Some examples:
- Tildes.
- Sourcehut.
- HackerNews.
- To a limited degree, the different motherfucking websites (as they are, in essence, websites with no purpose).
- Members of the 512kb club (also see https://10kbclub.com/).
- Tools like Miniflux and Kanboard.
- Pinboard.in.
- And many others.
What is your experience, if any, with the small web?
Which steps have you taken (if at all) to ensure your website is not bloated?
What do you think can be done better both individually as well as globally to make the web a nicer, faster place?
Edit: So I don’t look like I don’t practice what I preach, this is my blog. I try and follow the minimalist principles.
I think overly minimalist (i.e. no CSS) websites are taking it too far, because for whatever reason plain HTML defaults are awful (full-width text, serif fonts).
I like "minimalist" sites like Hacker News and old.reddit.com. But I also like good sites you may not call minimalist, like Tildes, web.dev, or www.solidjs.com. The key details are:
I've heard an interesting argument (originally against the FSF's objections to JS, which aren't quite the same as your point) that goes "removing JS tends to shift more code serverside, which makes the app more reliant on a consistent network connection. Given that developing countries have unreliable+slow internet connections, we should prioritize apps that can use JS to avoid unnecessary server calls and page loads."
Or something like that. I don't remember where I read it, so if someone does then please comment with it.
Obviously, this doesn't mean "it's okay write lots of pointless JS", it's more of a disagreement on what exactly the web should look like.
JS can also be useful for a lot of small features which you either don't need or could in theory implement server side, but client-side is better. Like WYSIWYG markdown editors (or any text editor which isn't a
textarea, upvote/downvote buttons which change the counter, etc.)Ideally, sites which don't really need JS (like blogs or forums) should function without JS. After that, having JS for minor things, or even JS over the entire site to improve the experience (e.g. loading content better than the browser (although not sure if JS is what's doing it in this case), or changing a static feed into a React-powered dynamic one) is only a benefit.
That strikes me as the opposite. A scriptless page only makes one (or a few) connections to the server in one short burst. It should load in as short a time as possible, and then the browser can hold onto the state of that static web page indefinitely. (The user could even download it to recall offline, since it's just a bundle of static files.) Any time the user wants to do something, they initiate another atomic request that either works (a new page is loaded) or doesn't (error page), and they can simply use the back button to go back to the previous state.
Dynamic pages that fetch data asynchronously could make a request for needed data at any time, so the state isn't fixed after a page is loaded. It may even give up and break if it can't make a connection. Most of us have probably closed a laptop, come back later, and had to reload GMail or Jira or something because it broke without being able to constantly communicate with the server. Whereas I can load a Tildes page and keep it open forever.
The vast majority of web browser defaults are actually really good. The default layout options are the main one's I'd disagree with, though. And when it comes to default fonts it really depends on your system; Firefox's default font looks OK on MacOS and Linux, but Windows' font rendering just mangles them, to the point where I sort of wish they'd make it different on the Windows version of the browser.
My main problem is the trend of frontend devs overwriting or recreating form elements, so you can't use keyboard shortcuts to fill them out quickly. They do things that might make them easier for mobile users, but terrible for computer users. I see it less frequently in the past year or so, but frustratingly I see one on a work application that I use frequently.
Somewhat related thread from a couple days ago where folks were posting lightweight websites they liked: https://tild.es/17br
Worth noting that pinboard is (tragically) basically abandoned. Plenty of discussion on hackernews about it. It sucks, since pinboard was so great and I loved the philosophy behind it.
Indeed, lately I'm progressing towards a minimalism absolutist strategy, I think it is needed even in web design and in fact many other aspects of our lives. What you're seeing here in terms of these minimal sites is the very future of humanity itself.
I have trouble reading the text on that, the contrast seems low :(
Great topic! I've been guilty of using the term small web interchangeably with retro web, revival web, indie web, etc. I do think they're in the same family, but I'm not sure how to define small web. The lines blur.
I like your distinction between minimalist design and minimalist sites. I've done some work archiving and cleaning up old Tripod & Angelfire sites, because they're primary sources from the early internet that I don't want to get lost. The oldest ones are pretty basic, maybe some BODY BGCOLOR=#CCFFFF to spice things up, no CSS. They fit the bill aesthetically and functionally. But many have silly fonts, animated gifs and tiled backgrounds - do these count? What if they try to play a midi?
Do we measure the small web in kilobytes, load time, HTML version they comply to, or number of pages? I think there might be something to that last one. Small websites are finite. Not necessarily static, but new content isn't generated every second. No endless scrolling, no tricks to get people to stay for hours.
That's scratching the surface of course. I love the small web, spending time on that side of the net makes me less tolerant of sites with intrusive (obtrusive?) ads. And those damn full-page popups asking me to sign up for a mailing list? Well now I'm definitely not doing that
In my humble understanding (or rather how I personally label the small web), the small web are:
I could probably add more to this list, alas I don't have the brain-capacity available to me right now.
I'm a huge fan of the small web --- though I do a lot of stuff off-the-Web, like IRC, XMPP, shared shell, etc. For those, tilde.town is A+, as well as the wider tildeverse. I would actually argue that Hacker News isn't the small web, since it's got a lot of content and comments focusing on big web stuff like Meta, Twitter, kubernetes, etc. I would say the Fediverse is small web though even though, like, Mastodon is a heavy site, because it's focused on community-building (at least the parts I'm on).
So I guess I'm saying I think the small web is more about community as opposed to capital. And that's what I like about it.
Thanks for linking sourcehut. Looks like that closely aligns with my values.
For me, "small web" type sites are the only kind of web dev that still feels fun and creative.
Generally speaking I'm a big fan simplifying things and making them more minimal, both on the web and in software in general, but I feel like a lot of people do so at the expense of personality.
Not that every website needs personality in it's design, something like Tildes for example works well enough with it's simple straightforward design, but I feel like so many people's personal websites lack any kind of unique flair in their design.
Most of the websites linked in this thread for example are primarily black and white with some color for links and whatnot (mostly shades of blue) with little to no defining characteristics in the design. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and I definitely prefer it to slow, heavy, cluttered websites that plague the web, but it'd be nice to see some more diversity.
Obviously I'm a bit biased but my personal website is a good example, I feel like my design is pretty unique compared to most things you'd see on the web but it's still very small (the entire directory on my PC which includes a few things that aren't on the public site is ~248KB) and fast.
Love the dithering!
Thanks! I spent way too long trying to hack together a way to do dithering with pure CSS so it'd be more flexible and take less space but ultimately failed. All of my dithered images I use for background are under 1KB (the biggest one is only 230 bytes) so it's not like it's a big extra load or anything, but I still wish I could've figured out a way to do it.
I tend to think of the small web as individual, personal blogs and small community sites such as the tildeverse. I actually don't think of Tildes as part of the small web, because there's so many here (although I joined very recently; this might have been a much tighter community before).
The blogs on the small web are frequently where I find the most interesting information! Most of the ones I've read are tech-related, but quite a number of them tackle on other topics, too. I like this discourse on "The Quiet Web", for example:
https://briankoberlein.com/tech/quiet-web/
https://manuelmoreale.com/asynchronous-conversations
I feel frustrated how you can never really just stumble onto these from web searches anymore, because the major search engine indices are so polluted with soulless, SEO-marketed websites with empty thoughts. You can seek them out to a good extent, but one way or another luck is such a factor in finding them -- you randomly come across a great blog post in HN or Lobsters, for example, or one of the blogs you already know links to a new blog.
Just a while ago, there were small search engine projects with curated indices that focused specifically on small-web-type sites. ht3.org was what I liked, but that's gone now.
I actually follow a very similar approach to bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com, where you lean heavily on HTML as it is, with a sprinkling of CSS to make things readable with delight.
No JS (because my pages aren't dynamic), no client-side tracking. If I ever want to look at visit stats (and I rarely do), I view nginx access logs with goaccess.
On that note, thanks for the link to the 512kb club! I've put in a PR for fun :)
Those are interesting reads, thanks for the links!
Minimalist is good, but at the same time a site needs to be functional and efficient - and sometimes that will take a bunch of CSS and JavaScript.
Also, it's important that accessibility doesn't take a backseat (which it often does with primitive websites).
I like OP's distinction that he's lauding minimalist design - that is, actively designed to be be minimal in nature - as opposed to minimal design (i.e. lacking design) or just minimalist (i.e. lacking something it really should have).
I'm a big fan of the design of http://xkcd.com/ (also a fan of the humour, of course).
Can you explain what you mean by accessibility taking a back-seat on “primitive” websites? In my experience, the exact opposite is true. If anything, having to explicitly support accessibility features for your website only becomes a requirement when people use lots of JavaScript and CSS without considering how it might break the site for existing and more general purpose accessibility tools (like screen readers).
I was thinking the same thing. My earliest hobby websites were automatically accessible, just because there was hardly any way not to be.
Nowadays, I won't even do front end work professionally, because I can't even understand the shit we have turned it into, nevermind knowing how to make it usable to somebody with special needs.
I was distinguishing primitive from minimal; as in the 'primitive' page is only minimal because the author was too lazy to make it otherwise and the laziness extended to not bothering with things like alt tags in the pictures or properly linking labels to inputs.
A page that is minimal because the author made the effort to make the user experience good without any bloat is a different matter. I agree such pages will usually be more accessible.
Someone here on Tildes recently introduced me to Gopher which led to Gemini and I’ve been in love. I check Gemini daily now, post articles and interact with the community on BBS. I vastly prefer the experience to the modern web, and find myself checking news and the weather via Gemini feeds.
Do you have any gemini sites you would recommend or a BBS site you'd recommend? I've browsed a little bit but it can be harder to find things on Gemini as compared to the normal web.
For sure! Here's a collection of links on my capsule:
alextheuxguy on gemini
There's a few ways to look at this.
What's good for techies
What's good for normies
And the intersection
Strict minimalism isn't always great for normies who for example need a wysiwyg editor, but you think a textarea will do.
Flashy designs may tempt normies, but it has no correlation to if the product is usable.
To me the important question is, can I use the damn thing? Surprisingly often the answer for me is no, but its not just because there's javascript on the page.
My theory is if you can follow these 3 rules, you'll have a great website.
1 - can do I do my required task
2 - is UX getting in the way
3 - is performance getting in the way
Thank you for this. I tired the same path as you recently.
All that bloat and chunkiness isn't really needed, it's possible to create a fully functional ecommerce site which doesn't need a truck load of compressed javascript as convoy, this simple and bland ebay copy from the 90's archives is blessed proof of that.
I'm legit a fan and recently discovered CBC Lite
I was using and loving Miniflux until very recently. Self hosting it and Wallabag since they have the option for a one click save to the latter. But....I could not come up with a good automated backup solution. So I switched to Feeder and Omnivore.
I definitely enjoy minimalist websites and I'm a programmer myself so it's understandable, but I found the small web to be too ideologically motivated for my tastes. In my experience, friends of mine who aren't technically inclined find minimalist websites forgettable and hard to use.
Anything more complex should be illegal.