The revived No JS Club celebrates websites that don’t use Javascript, the powerful but sometimes overused code that’s been bloating the web and crashing tabs since 1995. The No CSS Club goes a step further and forbids even a scrap of styling beyond the browser defaults. And there is even the No HTML Club, where you’re not even allowed to use HTML. Plain text websites!
The modern web is the pure incarnation of evil. When Satan has a 1v1 with his manager, he confers with the modern web. If Satan is Sauron, then the modern web is Melkor [1]. Every horror that you can imagine is because of the modern web. Modern web is not an existential risk (X-risk), but is an astronomic suffering risk (S-risk) [2]. It is the duty of each and every man, woman, and child to revolt against it. If you’re not working on returning civilization to ooga-booga, you’re a bad person.
A compromise with the clubs is called for. A hypertext brutalism that uses the raw materials of the web to functional, honest ends while allowing web technologies to support clarity, legibility and accessibility. Compare this notion to the web brutalism of recent times, which started off in similar vein but soon became a self-subverting aesthetic: sites using 2.4MB frameworks to add text-shadow: 40px 40px 0px hotpink to 400kb Helvetica webfonts that were already on your computer.
I also like the idea of implementing “hypotext” as an inversion of hypertext. This would somehow avoid the failure modes of extending the structure of text by failing in other ways that are more fun. But I’m in two minds about whether that would be just a toy (e.g. references banished to metadata, i.e. footnotes are the hypertext) or something more conceptual that uses references to collapse the structure of text rather than extend it (e.g. links are includes and going near them spaghettifies your brain). The term is already in use in a structuralist sense, which is to say there are 2 million words of French I have to read first if I want to get away with any of this.
Republished Under Creative Commons Terms. Boing Boing Original Article.
CSS on the other hand is quite essential to separate layout from content. Which is a good thing, so I can’t really think of a reason for a “no-CSS” rule. Specifically if you can use inline styles as well but in a way more messy way.
I know that’s what CSS is supposed to do, but I’m not sure many people use it that way.
Separate you layout from content so hard that you have no opinions about the layout.
Oh, come on. You really want some at least readable output. Things like image borders, consistently positioned images/diagrams, line breaks and page borders. Some whitespace and indentations, too. You just can’t read a couple of pages full of unformatted raw text without massive eye fatigue. I’m all for dumping JS and excessive frameworks, I’d prefer well-formed XHTML over any of that clients-side scripted crap, but totally rejecting CSS is pointless zealotry.
Why do you think I’m advocating for getting rid of CSS and not being silly?
I think the idea is that you keep the layout as simple as possible such that you don’t need any code for it, css or otherwise.
CSS is useful but also the devil.
CSS is mostly evil when you have to center elements in the page.
Learn flex forget pixels and screen measurements.
text-align: center
or
margin: auto
or
grid
or
flexbox
It’s really not that hard now.
What if I still have to support IE6?
Don’t
I got you covered:
position: absolute; left: 50%; transform: translateX(-50%);In a position relative parent
Then quit your job and get one that doesn’t need to worry about stuff Microsoft doesn’t support anymore.
I made a promise, Mr. garretble: a promise. “Don’t you make me use any other browser,” said my nan; and I don’t mean to. I don’t mean to.
She’s still using Windows XP.
Then your life choices should be of more concern then centering a div.
How many different languages do you speak?
Someone will thank you for your service. Not me, but someone.
Separating layout from content is good. CSS is a really bad way to do it.