What aspects of the old web should we leave behind?

[Bede]

I've been thinking about the web revival movement a lot lately, and sites that come of it, and how some people say that they do or say certain things because it's "web 1.0" and "authentic". Which is usually true. But I often think, "That doesn't mean it's a good thing!"

I think that web revival spaces should make a point to denounce certain aspects of web 1.0, to be left behind in the revival. We don't want to turn the clock back; we want to bring forth what was good about the past, not bring the old problems back.

What things do you think should be left with web 1.0? In terms of culture, mostly, but things like old tech can be talked about too. You can also say what things from the modern web should be explicitly emphasized as something to include within the movement!

I'll give some examples. I think that we need to leave the normalized bigotry of web 1.0 behind. Being online when you were visibly marginalized in any back then was AWFUL, and it was often just excused with "edgy humor"... And maybe we should be encouraging more webmasters to make their sites mobile-friendly. Sure, it's not "authentic", but the truth is that phones are a part of our world in ways that they weren't back then. So we should accommodate our old web sites for that!

[Nickolox]

personally not a big fan of the lack of accessibility, mostly in terms of having a load of flashing images on sites front and center w/ no way to turn them off lol
it's something I've seen on a lot of pages and like yeah, cool, go nuts and have as many as you want, but at least give me a warning AND the option to turn them off on like, a landing page
I'm not epileptic but after a while stuff like that gives me a headacheeee, and besides, i think we should keep all folks in mind when we're making our sites! It only feels polite and kind to do so.

[pinkvampyr]

Definitely all of the above. I personally feel that the web revival is a good name for a movement that has often been co-opted by misplaced nostalgia. People having this idea that there was once a time on the old web when nobody made a big deal out of social issues like bigotry and inequality. When the reality is that was just a byproduct of a more generally ignorant society, not a lack of activists or people who cared. In the same vein there were many websites that were not a complete nightmare to look at if you suffer from seizures or migraines, although obviously we now have clearer standards for accessibility in general. Also, I keep saying it, but we can't pretend like we're living in a world where people aren't using their phones to use the internet especially as smartphones have grown become used as an accessibility device. Not every site has to be compatible with phones but there's nothing radical about intentionally making your site mobile-unfriendly.

[devils]

Web accessibility is a huge passion of mine, so that is my primary focus. As far as mobile compatibility goes, I hate the fact that phones are the way they are nowadays, but you're absolutely right in saying they're a part of our daily lives... however, that also can go against a Webmaster's vision, so I'd say it's a case-by-case basis. My site is not mobile-compatible, but it is responsive (I think?) in the sense that it works with various computer resolutions.

Regarding bigotry, I think there's a fine line between free speech and just outright being a bigoted weirdo. I wrote about it on my site recently, but I think anyone should be allowed a personal website... I'm not quite sure how to approach hate speech though, especially when it comes to opinion pieces rather than just «edgy humor».

One thing I would change is definitely the lack of proper censorship. The fact that snuff videos and illegal videos other than CSEM were so easily accessible (and to some extent, still are) is worrying, to say the least. I'm all for freedom of artistic expression (yes, even the freaky stuff), but when it comes to IRL people getting re-victimized, that's something I cannot stand for obvious reasons- this is why I never say I'm against censorship in general, and say I'm opposed to art censorship instead.

[Cele]

My websites can be used with phone but. You need to zoom a bunch. Wasn't really planning on doing anything to that.

I do not want to see any screamers... They used to be everywhere and I hated them.

And I do understand if there's like an archive of old graphics that has something like, say, the r word because well, it's an archive. But I don't really wanna see stuff like that in casual use.

[virtualtelegrams]

Some things sort-of have to be left behind with browser modifications- autoplaying music is generally blocked. Which isn't necessarily bad, but it is different.
Always opening links in a new tab can be annoying if I'm clicking through one site. I think this is a case-by-case basis of user preference, and what the site is for.

[emeowly]

most others said it already but i think the lack of accessibility should be left behind. the "old web" was often un-friendly to disabled users at best, usually impossible to navigate if you couldnt use a mouse or had to use a screenreader, and outright life-altering/life-threatening at worst(for those unaware, seizures can cause brain damage and death) and ive seen most of the same issues resurface in the "web revival" community just because it's how it was 15-20 years ago

the personal web is a place where i feel marginalized people especially can thrive compared to on social media, but theres a huge disregard of accessibility and belief that accessibility is unimportant on the personal web, or that its only actually important on essential websites and social media. things that, while not explicitly saying it, tells us that this community isnt for us, that we arent welcome, or that we should just stick to social media if we need extra accessibility

i understand why it was such a problem in the past, i dont think accessibility online is something many people thought of at the time and there wouldve been far less resources for it. but today we have endless guides that explain what accessibility is, why its important(*everywhere*), and access to many simple ways to make sites accessible

[brisray]

That's a nice post @emeowly

I have worked on corporate and educational sites that were required to be WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guideline) compliant but until you've seen how some people have to struggle to use websites it's difficult to realize what the guidelines mean to users with disabilities of one sort or another.

What brought it home ot me was watching a friend with macular degeneration use the web. He regularly used both a screen reader and viewed websites at over 400x magnification with his computer's high contrast mode on and mostly used the keyboard to get around sites.

It's much more than putting a warning on a page about flashing colors. The University of Washington has a list of things of things to think about to make pages accessible. Some are easier to implement than others and some won't apply to personal sites. It's quite a list, but if you're serious about doing it, it becomes seond nature.

Using some of the rules, even some of simplest such as the choice of colors, may not be to some designers liking because it interferes with their artistic freedom or how they envision their site.

W3C has a list of accessibility checkers. Some require some sort of signup, have some sort of download to do continuous checking, or are meant for professional sites, but some such as https://www.accessibilitychecker.org/ are quick and easy to use.

[starbreaker]

but some such as https://www.accessibilitychecker.org/ are quick and easy to use.

I prefer https://wave.webaim.org/ because it doesn't shill for overlays like AccessiBe and UserWay the way accessibilitychecker.org does.

Adrian Rosselli has the following to say about these overlays.

https://adrianroselli.com/2020/06/accessibe-will-get-you-sued.html

https://adrianroselli.com/2021/09/userway-will-get-you-sued.html

[pinkvampyr]

I prefer https://wave.webaim.org/ because it doesn't shill for overlays like AccessiBe and UserWay the way accessibilitychecker.org does.

wave is okay but it will still miss a lot of details! i'd highly recommend axe devtools (firefox extension and chrome extension). you view it while using inspect/devtools.

[bingus_baby]

I wanna throw in my two cents on the accessibility issue! I feel like a big solution could be to have "lite" modes on sites. When I first started my first site, I had an option on the splash page to visit the site, or a stripped down version which was plain text with no images, except for really necessary, not animated ones. I personally adore hideous and flashy graphics, but understand why some don't, so for sites like that I think alternate themes or versions could be a solution!!

[pinkvampyr]

I wanna throw in my two cents on the accessibility issue! I feel like a big solution could be to have "lite" modes on sites. When I first started my first site, I had an option on the splash page to visit the site, or a stripped down version which was plain text with no images, except for really necessary, not animated ones. I personally adore hideous and flashy graphics, but understand why some don't, so for sites like that I think alternate themes or versions could be a solution!!

This is a really good idea, and actually some websites do function properly in firefox reader view, which is exactly that. Although I'm not ENTIRELY sure how to make it function on my website, I've managed to make it function on some simpler pages. Either way I always did plan on making my splash page a place to adjust settings, so I might do something like that!

[starbreaker]

I wanna throw in my two cents on the accessibility issue! I feel like a big solution could be to have "lite" modes on sites. When I first started my first site, I had an option on the splash page to visit the site, or a stripped down version which was plain text with no images, except for really necessary, not animated ones. I personally adore hideous and flashy graphics, but understand why some don't, so for sites like that I think alternate themes or versions could be a solution!!

There might be a neat way to check for mobile vs desktop via CSS media queries without checking screen resolution. You might be able to check the pointer type instead. Mozilla Developer has details on CSS pointer, but here's the short version: mobile devices generally have a "coarse" pointer. They aren't pixel-accurate because you can't get that kind of accuracy from a human finger on a touchscreen. Desktops and laptops have a "fine" pointer.

I think I'll be experimenting with this in my own stylesheet soon while I declutter my pages.

[emeowly]

wave is okay but it will still miss a lot of details! i'd highly recommend axe devtools (firefox extension and chrome extension). you view it while using inspect/devtools.

oo thanks for recommending this!! ive been using wave, but going by the extension it's missed a lot

[CableCat]

I'm in love with this thread. I started my website with the intent to put a bunch of crap on it so it was like the old web websites that did not follow conventional graphic design. But I never accounted for accessibility. It wasn't a thought in my mind because my website is a personal site for me and not a site/service designed for other people. But I realize that line of thinking is antithetical to the community-building aspect of the old web! How can I truly participate in building community if my site excludes people and then they cannot fully participate?

I'll put adding accessible versions of my site pages on my to-do list!