Times New Roman is fine - serif fonts are supposedly more readable - it's the line widths that kill me here - figuring out which line you're due to start on next really disrupts flow
You can resize the window and the text flows to fit, which is something a weird amount of websites prevent you doing. You can ctrl+ to increase font size if it's too small, or ctrl- if it's too big.
I dislike the white background, but otherwise it's very readable for the way I use web browsers -- one of some open windows.
Browsing the web using half of 1600 pixels in width is a surprising amount of pain in the ass, but perfect for CSS-free sites. It seems that designers tend to design for full screen, which I guess reflects their own workflow, but not at all mine as a programmer.
Hardly anyone is writing their styles to set the body text to Times New Roman. Aside from serif typefaces not actually being so bad, if you're seeing Times New Roman on sites like these, it's because you haven't set your default font and your browser is falling back to it on your system.
Fixing this in Firefox is as easy as opening about:preferences in a new window and selecting your preferred sans font. Dan's site will instantly be transformed, and every other site like his (e.g. http://cr.yp.to/https://motherfuckingwebsite.com etc) will be rendered similarly for all future visits.
The web bloat page does have a little CSS in the header. If there was a limit on the words per line, that's all I need on desktop. In mobile Safari, the text size is a little small; I think mobile Safari's default font-size is 16px, same as desktop, it should probably be 18px. This site's CSS could make it bigger (wouldn't even need to make it mobile-only).
Mobile Safari is doing an okay horizontal scroll for the data tables because they don't fit in the portrait width on my phone; to make it nicer on mobile calls for using different HTML, either repeating the data in the original HTML and selectively displaying them with CSS or using JavaScript to manipulate the data.
There's also the site (can't find it anymore, anyone got a link?) that offered a different metric for how bloated your site is: divide the total page weight by the same page's contents rendered into a jpeg.
Comments
All this CSS minimalism reminds me of Dan Luu's post about Web Bloat: https://danluu.com/web-bloat/
His website is refreshingly light and fast, but that's still no excuse for Times New Roman. Maybe it's a retro irreverence thing.
Times New Roman is fine - serif fonts are supposedly more readable - it's the line widths that kill me here - figuring out which line you're due to start on next really disrupts flow
You can resize the window and the text flows to fit, which is something a weird amount of websites prevent you doing. You can ctrl+ to increase font size if it's too small, or ctrl- if it's too big.
I dislike the white background, but otherwise it's very readable for the way I use web browsers -- one of some open windows.
Browsing the web using half of 1600 pixels in width is a surprising amount of pain in the ass, but perfect for CSS-free sites. It seems that designers tend to design for full screen, which I guess reflects their own workflow, but not at all mine as a programmer.
Hardly anyone is writing their styles to set the body text to Times New Roman. Aside from serif typefaces not actually being so bad, if you're seeing Times New Roman on sites like these, it's because you haven't set your default font and your browser is falling back to it on your system.
Fixing this in Firefox is as easy as opening about:preferences in a new window and selecting your preferred sans font. Dan's site will instantly be transformed, and every other site like his (e.g. http://cr.yp.to/ https://motherfuckingwebsite.com etc) will be rendered similarly for all future visits.
The website actually uses the default font for your browser. I've always changed this to a sans-serif font.
This is not CSS minimalism, this is NO CSS.
How that site is rendered on your device is the default look of any website in your browser before any CSS is applied.
This site would actually profit a lot from this minimal CSS as the defaults are bad and on mobile they are even worse.
The web bloat page does have a little CSS in the header. If there was a limit on the words per line, that's all I need on desktop. In mobile Safari, the text size is a little small; I think mobile Safari's default font-size is 16px, same as desktop, it should probably be 18px. This site's CSS could make it bigger (wouldn't even need to make it mobile-only).
Mobile Safari is doing an okay horizontal scroll for the data tables because they don't fit in the portrait width on my phone; to make it nicer on mobile calls for using different HTML, either repeating the data in the original HTML and selectively displaying them with CSS or using JavaScript to manipulate the data.
There's also the site (can't find it anymore, anyone got a link?) that offered a different metric for how bloated your site is: divide the total page weight by the same page's contents rendered into a jpeg.
a lot of people would argue that his website is very hard to read
That website looks like a professor's hand-coded attempt at a course website for his Combinatorics class.
The text layout alone could have been lifted straight from any academic journal, aka the densest, least readable typographic style.