Where do websites belong?

[dirtnap]

@dirtnap I think you get it 
First to answer this technical question - this is a workaround for a limitation of my frame URL fix script, it cant render off-site paths 

As for everything else!
Yes! the forum is an artwork and you are a participant in it! I could be pretentious and say that everything is an artwork etc etc, but this forum literally is intended to be one; by hell or high water I want to get us all in the Louvre someday 

You went on a journey with this post, and I enjoyed reading along with you, and it helped me put into words some of the things I haven't been able to explain yet. You started in the mundane reality of web design, economic issues and mobile accessibility; but as your progressed you started to break free; by the end, you weren't in reality anymore; you were in a dream of an art gallery that only exists in your mind!

I love how everyone has jumped on the term "computer den"  I didn't actually know why I included it in the first post, but I knew it was important! Of course, I don't have a computer den (although I know some elderly people that do) - but the computer den is not supposed to be a real place, it's a dream room - it's the prosperity and success and contentment that we all hope for.
I could totally do that; but it's not really my style, I'm not direct in that way (though maybe I should be). The thing is, like I said above, my ideal context or the ideal place to view my site.. it's not a real place or a real device.. it's like that computer den and your art gallery, it's a dream space - simply put, I'm not super interested in the real device that actually views my site or doesn't; I don't find that important
Maybe that's why I keep going back to beaches and the sea, because those are dream-like too - I care about the dream that's experienced as someone explores a site; like nighttime dreams, inconsistency is often what makes it interesting.

So when you ask, what do I mean when I say web revival - I mean a web of revival; a revival of ideas, of perception, of waking up and going to sleep, of people's will and spirit to dream of unknown places and other worlds. It's impossible to ever be revived, it only lasts for moments, but those moments are worth it  Finding those moments is not something you can just browse too, it takes the kind of effort you had to put in to write this post!

You seem to misunderstand a lot about me, but that's ok I'm still trying to figure things out and totally agree that being a contrarian is the best way to be! Also, I love the bug buddy button!

i'm very late replying. i keep meaning to, and then not doing it because i can't word my thoughts properly. at this point i think it's sensible to decide that any reply is better than none.

feels pretty silly to resurrect this thread only to say i'm glad i was wrong, but, i'm glad i was wrong, and that a large portion of my post was founded on a misunderstanding of your intent. the first line of this thread disparaging mobile use coloured my reading of the rest of your OP, so i read "where do websites belong?" as "should websites even be mobile-friendly?" and that's very much on me, but i wonder if a couple of others here misread it in a similar way for similar reasons.

[RadDevon]

I got interested in punk rock in the late 90s and early 2000s. I liked the music, but I really liked the ideology: the fierce independence, the DIY ethic, the leftist politics, the contempt for authority… but I could never get fully invested in it. I would read magazines and web articles that reflected and fleshed out my own ideals, written by writers who considered themselves part of the scene, but I don't know that I ever encountered any of those idealistic people in real life. As far as I could tell, punk rock was a few people who believed stuff with a whole bunch of people joining the conga line because they liked the cool fashion.

My biggest concern about web revival is that I sometimes see evidence of it devolving into this fashion-centric tribalism. I actually came across a web site recently that said, "Fuck responsive design." Wait, "fuck responsive design?" Why? Best I can tell, there is no reason except that it's not popular with the web revival/smolweb/old web crowd, and you're either with us or against us, so… fuck responsive design! I see people randomly picking out other technology that came about after 199x — RSS for example — and bundling it up with those "technologies that should not be named because they weren't on Geocities in the 90s." I don't think for a second this is where @Melooon is coming from, but it's a worrying trend I see in this emerging subculture that your question brought to the forefront of my mind. Yes, signaling can be useful in finding your people, but what if I want to signal with something more substantial? It seems at least as valid.

To me, it seems the reason the web revival is happening is because the web became this weird exploitative mall. It's watching what we're doing, trying to sell us on the things it thinks we're most likely to buy, and selling our data to someone at the same time. If that's the concern, that means the non-negotiables for web revival should be no tracking, no ads, and, if you're going to try to sell me anything at all, make sure you made it yourself and the money primarily goes to you… and even then, do so sparingly.

Now, I'm going to complicate my own argument just a bit. 😅 Another objection to the mainstream web is that, while the sites got way more homogeneous, they also got harder to build with complicated toolchains. Web revival questions the assumptions that led to that, and I can see how this gets you to, "should we ever make sites responsive?" That's one of the thing the mainstream web says you have to do because you need to capture all those shopping dollars, whether they come from phones or computers. But just because the commercial web has a financial interest in inclusivity doesn't mean we can't also value its intrinsic benefits.

But there are people who take this tribalism too far. It becomes homogeneous in the other direction. "Oh, you're web revival? Then make sure you have a seamless tiling background image, under construction gif, and frames. And if we even hear you're considering  responsive or RSS, you're out of the club!" Should every web revival site be responsive? No. Is the site out of the club if it is? Shouldn't be, in my opinion. Does every site need a construction gif? No. Can some of them have it? Sure, why not?

All that to say, whether or not a site is responsive doesn't seem fundamental to what this movement is reacting to. Seems like some sites can be responsive while others aren't and both can equally belong to club "web revival."

To me, responsive is a little bit like accessibility. Do I want low vision people to be able to use the site? What about people who are using a phone, either because that's all they have or because that's what they want to use right now? Doesn't mean every site has to be responsive, but it seems like a noble goal if you have the time and expertise to make it happen and if it makes sense for your site.

[Melooon]

i wonder if a couple of others here misread it in a similar way for similar reasons

Thanks for the reply and Im glad I didn't scare you away I have to apologise since perhaps I semi-consciously intended to start a debate with that wording, although I didn't fully expect it when it came! I don't always understand my own thoughts so putting them into words can be difficult; I think I got a little wiser thanks to you, so I'm grateful! Hopefully its a good read for others who might be thinking along the same lines we were!

My biggest concern about web revival is that I sometimes see evidence of it devolving into this fashion-centric tribalism.

The thing is that the "web revival" is really just a collectively agreed name for a group of subcultures that up to 2021 were quite separate. Circumstances (largely due to the pandemic) lead to those groups interacting more and trying to organise into a more cohesive community.

To invent names for a few as examples:

• Classics - People who make old school life logging homepages.
• Fans - Like classics but with more focus on shrines and fandoms.
• Old Webbers - People who insist on making sites that only use old tech and must work on old platforms.
• Digital Artists - People who make websites as literal artworks.
• Traditional Artists - People who make websites because they want to show their art online.
• Radicals - People who dislike social media and big tech largely for political reasons (both right and left)
• Junk Kids - Usually younger teens who make homepages as semi-memes (often very impressibly)
• FOSS Heads - People who insist on Open Source software and platform independence.
• Programmers - People who just like a good programming challenge.
• Wikians - People who just love writing and sharing information online.
• etc

In reality most people are on a spectrum and will lean towards a few of these groups. Prior to the web revival though most of these groups had their own sub groups and while they might have occasionally been aware of each other - they didn't interact that often beyond the occasional link or guestbook comment. There was certainly no sense of a community spirit.

That community spirit has been amazing and it really supercharged people to start new projects and think up new ideas; it promoted a lot of cross pollination; it also made the whole idea of web creation, small community and open knowledge much more approachable and inviting to a wider range of people. However there are still wildly different subcultures under the web revival name.

I don't think its lightly that one group will ever come to dominate others (that would require wayyy too much consensus). However my worry is that the web revival will split back into separate subcultures again that refuse to interact or associate with one another, we will lose critical mass and that feeling of a shared identity will be gone, and we will just be back to cliques and bubbles 

This whole topic was actually part of a wider run of topics Iv been starting trying to figure out where the common ground is for web crafters (its always changing), and how we can keep ideas open enough to allow people to engage with separate viewpoints and motives.

If I could have my way I would ban the term "accessibility" (I don't think people would actually tolerate that ), not because its wrong, but because it always seems to spread discontent and divides. That happens because it falls into the trap of "morally correct" web design. Its a trap because what are morals? The question is essentially unanswerable (particularly in relation to design); as soon as you try to invent an answer you've set yourself up as being right and saying everyone else is wrong.

The reality is that its not right or wrong to make your site responsive, or to have ads, or to make your site look like its from the 90s, or to make it a white cube, or to use Wix or Chrome or Windows 95. The web revival is about saying that everything is welcome; while also understanding the real pros and cons on each and making choices that empower you.

The whole question of this thread is a trap too, but that was the point; the question is intended to make people fall in and have to find a way out; finding your way out of mental road-blocks is the real goal

EDIT: Im basically saying I agree with your post 

[Memory]

I have not given it much thought honestly because it was just so easy to make Libre.Town mobile accessible. It just scales and reorders itself with flex-boxes.

If someone wants to look at my website at the doctor's office or in the tram, so be it. I like escaping into my silly little online worlds on the go too.

[Yukari]

Reading this thread reminded me of the time I genuinely tried browsing the internet from the Wii internet channel, with the janky wii mote and all. Also made me flash back to many years ago, when I was a regular on a different forum. There was this really active member who got promoted to moderator of the busiest subforum, but their computer fizzled out that same week. So they spent their first week as a moderator doing everything from their PS3. I remember being in awe of how they were able to do all their custodial duties with only the PS3 controller as their "keyboard".

I don't know where I'm going with this. My website is mobile-friendly but that's mostly because my desktop layouts already lend themselves to portrait orientation. I've also found that many websites are pretty navigable if you put your phone in horizontal orientation. I did find a tutorial on forcing your website to rotate 90 degrees on mobile, so people can view it w/o turning off their phone's orientation lock. It's over here but be warned that the rest of the thread turned into the kind of discussion we want to avoid.

[serenefork]

I think it depends on the website! Some websites I only use at home (such as this forum!) but other websites I use on my phone while I'm out (iNaturalist comes to mind). 
My site is currently intended to be something to sit down at home with; I will probably eventually make it mobile friendly once I am able to because I believe that accessibility is important to the Web Revival , not everyone on the web has access to a PC or laptop and thus has to rely on their phone or other devices.