Should some website features and designs be "listed" as historic?

[Melooon]

In the world of architecture its very common to have certain buildings that are "listed", meaning they are listed as historically important, culturally defining, or otherwise just very nice to have around. When a building is listed it can still be privately owned, and it can be used and renovated by its owner like any other building. However depending on the kind of listing it has, somethings cannot be changed.

Usually this means that the exterior of the building must remain the same, sometimes it also applies to interiors, and even materials used in the building. Listing a building is often intended to defend it against changing values and design trends; although this often makes them harder to manage and look after.

Websites are not like building at all; but they do have some similarities! They are important and sometimes life defining spaces that we spend much of our time in; and that time and the impact of those spaces on peoples lives is worth considering, both at a personal and a societal level.

Also worth noting; there is a precedent for this! While most western buildings consider "old stones" to be historic, Shinto shrines in Japan are renewed exactly how they used to be every few years. In the 1950s this lead to a UNESCO redefinition of what was historic to include the function or use of a building, not just its physical material.

I'm curious how people feel about this;

• Do you think some designs or features on websites should be listed?
• Are there any examples of design elements on a popular site you would say should be listed?
• And how would this even be possible? Would it be a law? Or a looser social agreement?
• Are there parts of your site you personally consider "listed"?

Im gonna say:
I actually do think that some features of websites should be listed; I think it should only be applied to larger sites that can economically support it, and it should take the form of a theme or mode you can enable or disable. I think people should be able to submit features they want listed to an independent website listing consortium that decides what features are worth listing, a little like how new emoji are approved. I think search engins could consider a sites tourism and historic value as part of their ranking, and preserving historic features could become a new kind of SEO that's far less destructive and encourages a healthier web.

And there are definitely parts of my site that are "listed", such as the repeating yellow text on the landing page, the enter gif, the overall layout of the homepage and its soundtrack - those things should never be changed because they are part of the soul of the site for me! 

[wolfkitty42]

Oh, 2 live in the world where we pass down personal websites over generations... I mean what? Haha. Somehow, the kids (that I am not planning 2 have, by the way!) would probably be disappointed inheriting a rainbow mess. Yeah yeah, complain all you'd like. It's a digital heirloom!!!

Hahaha! Anyways, other than that tangent... I definitely think this is a good idea! I think it's also interesting to think about it in relation 2 the wayback machine. Unlike real life, we CAN copy entire sites and leave them up, right? That being said, it's still nice if that site can still pop up in search engines... So I think it would come down 2 how the site owner wants 2 preserve their site, and if they are financially able 2 continue 2 pay 2 host it.

[Dan Q]

Are there parts of your site you personally consider "listed"?

I'm a huge believer in Tim BL's argument that "Cool URIs Don't Change". To which end, I consider my URLs to be "listed" and make them as permanent and unchanging as possible.

To such an extent that even though I've changed host, domain name, and platform many times, any URL (that leads to a HTML page) on my blog since... around 2002 onwards... will still work, through a series of redirections.

And it works! In 2022, I (re)discovered an exchange I'd had in 2006, a couple of domain names ago, with somebody. He'd written about me on his blog; I'd written about him on mine; we'd exchanged links. And even though both his link and my link had been "broken" by the changes both of us had made on our sites... following the links still worked flawlessly thanks to a chain of redirections!

I'm also very keen on retaining old content.

But curiously: I have no strong attachment to my designs. Designs come and go, and I've never felt the need to treat them as "listed".