This type of website is acceptable in the year 2016

This shit looks like something out of the fucking 90's.

Other urls found in this thread:

boards.4chan.org/g/thread/54514010
warnerbros.com/archive/spacejam/movie/jam.htm
hrodc.com/
idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm
tacc.utexas.edu/stampede/
malfador.com/se4.html
html5zombo.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Looks fine to me. Gets the job done.

wow dude how'd you get everything so flat?

:^)

boards.4chan.org/g/thread/54514010

>...something out of the fucking 90's.
The way you said it almost makes it seem like you think that's a bad thing.

I fucking love it. No Web 2.0 and 3.0 poz loads to be seen everywhere.

The 90s was a golden era for content accessibility, never forget it you dumb faggot

Websites in CURRENT_YEAR are even worse.
This is fine. It's readable, fast, probably less than a megabyte, and works on my toaster.

This site is find the way it is. I can get to the content I need right away. None of this 99999 JS scripts just to be able to expand a basic fucking list of drivers, and so on and so forth.

PURE CANCER

WEB 2.0 OR BUST

SOON WE WILL HAVE GLORIOUS WEB 3.0 WITH WEBASM

ARE YOU READY?

websites have way too much content these days

Ironically that's not how the web looked like in the 90's. OP's website is clearly 2000's.

I bet you can't even remember how the web looked like in the 90's because you were born after that, fucking millennials.

Does everything have to be all web 2.0 with flat colors and 500 javascript libraries? If it gets the job done why waste time and money just to make it look nice?

pot, kettle etc.

What, muh faux stone tiled background with times new roman font, animated gifs and flashing text? Nah, don't remember it.

That being said, the old Web still has its representatives here and there.

warnerbros.com/archive/spacejam/movie/jam.htm

Your OS, however, looks like shit out of the fucking 80's.

...

Unacceptable. But if you fix that, it probably is better than $CURRENT_YEAR websites.

kill yourself

millennials go back to 1980, fuckwit

this is, by far, the worst website i've ever encountered

hrodc.com/

used to be worse..

This.

learn to english faggot
it's either:
how the web looked
or
what the web looked like.

Also OP is obviously on Windows 8.* or 10.

Your next.

did you forget to write a proper verb in infinitive form after the "to"?

...

I belive they did. Wouldn't the "correct" way be "learn to write english'''

The site is just one big page with JS disabled. Also how ever decided on the colout scheme should be very slowly hanged by the neck, revived then hung, drawn and quarted.

I'm a web design n00b, so maybe I'm not understanding some shit. but I can't help but notice a few things about this page.

1.There doesn't seem to be a stylesheet at all. all the styling rules are written into the HTML tags.

2.All the links are .gifs which get fuzzy if you expand the resolution (which is why it only takes up half the page) they address this at the bottom of the website with "best viewed in 800X600"

.....why? this website doesn't even look like it was any easier to write than a non-retarded, somewhat responsive design that could easily be done with a few lines of CSS.

...

100% agreement. I'm sick of all these fancy bullshit webpages that get in the way when you're just trying to get some shit done.

Ah, Dreamweaver. The WYSIWYG HTML editor were dreams are woven.

No one's asking for an overly bloated jQuery/Node.js 20 MB per page website, we're asking for a fucking website that fits a resolution people still use.

...

You'd have to be a complete retard to get 20MB webpage. Which may be the natural state of most web developers.

Every. Single. Time.

20MB was a, very obvious, hyperbole.

This makes me feel good that I've spent 4 months learning HTML and CSS instead of just using a WYSIWYG editor.

No. This is the early-mid 2000s.

The 90s was purely plain text with the occasional background image, and maybe a sidebar or header.

This.

Is this bait?

It's like OP hasn't seen motherfuckingwebsite.com or idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm

IN FACT, WHY HAVEN'T THOSE TWO BEEN MENTIONED IN THIS ENTIRE FUCKING THREAD YET?!

It most certianly is. How does it taste?

Underpaid Asian code monkeys who are also part-time designers in disguise just can't create a sensible interface. Every driver and manufacturer-provided configuration program is a terrifying proof. Why can't they give up and let Windows API control the important things and just drop the completely useless shit targeted to dumb people who will never run it anyway?

Even then they read guidelines and try to follow design fads… see for yourself. (OC DO NOT STEAL) It's like a contest for fucking every sane principle up and not having a single a single unskinned pixel and a single matching margin anywhere.

Their modern software and websites are both terrible AND bloated (thank you, .Net! thank you, full-screen parallax scrolling!). Windows design team has dug the graves and is rolling in them.

...

youch

check out these timeless designs

old software used to have crazy ass interfaces running on Pentium 1-2, and now we have nothing but boxes and gradients and the software is all bloated as fuck

what happened

>>>/out/

I used eyebeam at work. Automatic voice normalization should be a thing in this shit.

Of course, none of those uses Universal UI components, they are just wanking with their precious skinning toolkits because 5 years after introduction of Metro UI making a simple application with a dozen of standard controls is still a tremendous problem for them.

If you did something stupid on Pentium, you'd see the problem immediately. For example, Winamp 5 scripted XML skin layout engine lagged like hell, unlike fixed bitmap skins of Winamp 2. Today even the system applications with standard controls use CSS layout engines and a couple of indirection layers.

It can be interesting to trace how much shit is happening under the hood of Explorer showing a simple list of icons compared to pre-OSR Win95 window with lonely ListView on it, but everyone who volunteered has been found dead. Strange, their faces were frozen forever in a state of extreme fear.

...

Windows users will try to justify this

I'm sorry. Would you rather have wikihow's site?

But seriously now, compare google's design to those of other sites. It is even worse here in Germany, we only have gay web designers.

...

Why not just force web devs to use gimped computers to force them to program decently?

They already all use Macs. Not sure how much more gimped they can get.

68k Macs

I actually like this suggestion.

...

You deserve this.

There's nothing to fix, there is nothing wrong with that page.

It's realtek. They make the shitty terrible quality integrated audio chipsets that retards and plebs use instead of buying real sound cards. Of course the site is poorly made.

Shitware like Windows and OSx is dragging down the entire software world
Ah, you're an "audiophile." I'm not surprised in the least. Maybe you should go buy some more PCIe power cleaning cards.

Gotta leave your house at some point.

...

...

pretty fucking spot on

Reminds me of UT's website for their cluster stampede. Its this shitty slideshow that you have to scroll through.

tacc.utexas.edu/stampede/
GIG 'EM, AGGIES!

Good

This is disgusting

At least the webpage has more than 16 colors, unlike the rest of your screen.

I miss these websites

Only amps matter now.

That made my browser lag. Forget the kikes, web developers will be the first to go on the day of the rope.

The WB Space Jam website was the peak of the internet.

Because if there's one thing I've learned from programming (and it must surely apply to web design too), it's that there are a whole lot of people who don't want to learn anything and will throw any bullshit together until it seems to work.
Though, in this specific case, and given other anons' replies, it's probably just dreamweaver. Which again falls under the category of not wanting to learn. One could argue that it makes website creation faster, but that argument misses the point that WYSIWYG editors produce very fragile content that doesn't work well on many devices and often doesn't work well on any level except visual. (And even then...)

Focus on your core business and don't fix ancillary shit if its not broken. So many companies fail at this. Realtek's actual customers don't care that there website is actually fast and easy to navigate and familiar so why would they care to update it and break everything. I don't know how many websites I go to from companies that are still around today but existed in the 90's and 2/3'ds of there links for old shit are broken because they updated there website and just dropped all the info for legacy shit that I'm actually interested in.

OP you are whats wrong with the world.

so
how do i have a spinning basketball as my web browser icon?

This tbh, and my trusty O2 drives anything anyway.

You cunts realize the reason why most websites don't look like this is because having a shitty website from the 1990s doesn't sell anything for a business, right?

Having hipsters drinking coffee sells to hipsters drinking coffee. Websites today are marketing documents.

...

Twitter is by far the slowest site I've ever used, and I have no idea how they manage to make 150-character text, avatars and overly recompressed jpegs capable of lagging my high end PC built 3 years ago

You do realise that it is 140 characters right?

Actually not that bad

BUNNY BOOBIES
gross

op sucks jquery

Pick one.

Your computer isn't high end, or you're being retarded and loading 6000000 tweets at once.

Point is it's bloated.

yeh, everyone knows kobolds are way better.

90s you say?

malfador.com/se4.html

Y'know, with a solid BG instead of the stars on the text and welcome, that would work nicely. Keep them on SE-IV and the side bar though.

Or maybe not solid but a more fitting BG

>No mention of html5zombo.com/

Wait. Why does he advocate using CSS inline above putting it on a separate stylesheet? That seems to go against what I've learned about best practices. How does limiting the amount of CSS reduce more bloating than images?

Because if you need to put it in a separate file you probably have too much CSS.