Nathan goes back to the PPC days - he is absolutely right about IE.. sadly, in OS 9, we had to use IE and just to test out things, i used IE 5.1.7, sadly, I wish Netscape was revised so it can be a browser like Classila.
Re web standards..why not go with W3C standards. The world wide web consortium. They set standards in the early 1990s.. based on the idea the web is for everyone...including the blind. A good web site should be accessible with minimum hardware and browser and readable by readers for the blind..ie read out loud the content. But the world wanted lots of bells and whistles ..so cluttered up web pages that must be a nightmare for blind people to listen to.
When I was learning to code in html5 you could test your page design on their web site.. this was coding without using a web making program...that add 'extras' with a click.
Their whole philosophy is ' Making the Web Accessible'.
Home
Accessibility resources free online from the international standards organization: W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI).www.w3.org
..and just checked.. yep..still can test web pages for accessibility:
Evaluating Web Accessibility Overview
Accessibility resources free online from the international standards organization: W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI).www.w3.org
Can this website be accessed under OS 9 ?+1 on this. Should be added to the 1st post as well.
Dude, you missed nothing, except that I am toying with idea of making a web browser for OS 9.I'm back after being wrongfully banned for two days. Let's see what I've missed...
I did my best to make my own website compatible with older browsers, and it will in fact work back to Safari 6. But the one thing I absolutely wasn't willing to give up was Flexbox. It's really freaking useful for basically any semi-complex layout, and it's a crime that the web went on for so long without it.I plan to redo my personal website with support for older browsers but frankly that website is just for my web portfolio. I tried to run a blog ten years ago, but I wasn’t a good frequent blogger so I removed it. Well, would be a good idea to showcase my skills with retrocompatibility for older browsers doing a new version of that portfolio exploring the unused HTML stuff.
If I wrote a webpage under OS 9, using BBEDIT, would it work for all versions of Mac OS X ? I just got a book called OS 9 Bible which I want to learn everything about OS 9, as I still believe it’s a useful OS. The squid proxy is good for snow Leopard to allow LWK to access those websites which currently give an SSL error. But, because I now have PowerMacten for OS 9, and CodeWarrior. I am going to read when I have the time how to compile Classila using these, then attempt to inject (code maybe) ? Crypto Ancienne per Kaiser’s instructions for Classila - if successful, my compiled Classila code would be TSL 1.2 compliant. Whether the rendering of most of the web will be realized, that it yet to be seen.I did my best to make my own website compatible with older browsers, and it will in fact work back to Safari 6. But the one thing I absolutely wasn't willing to give up was Flexbox. It's really freaking useful for basically any semi-complex layout, and it's a crime that the web went on for so long without it.
Wowfunhappy,Embedded media is good.
If you're a Mac enthusiast, it's presumably because you care about design on some level. The original Macintosh was created to improve upon the text-only UI of the Apple II, and early OS X was all about Aqua.
Perhaps more importantly, the early internet wasn't text-heavy due to limited processing power so much as limited internet speeds. It's difficult to load more than a few images on a dial-up connection, or even on DSL. Even the slowest cable internet connections don't have that problem today.
The thing slowing down old computers is Javascript, and to a lesser extent overly-complex CSS. (Did you know you can make Minesweeper purely out of CSS? It's kind of nuts.)
Disclaimer: I work at a web design studio. But I do believe in the power of good website design.
I need to update my site. Its design is a little over a year old and, while good, I feel it could do for a refresh.Alright folks, it looks like option two (equal to or lesser than HTML4, CSS2, frugal JS, frugally embedded media - similar to early 2000's Web) has won out as the proposed standard for Web 1.1 sites, according to a majority 23 out of 32 people polled over almost a month's worth of time.
Personally, I have already started practicing advanced HTML and CSS for the last several weeks in the hopes of contributing to the already expanding selection of Web 1.1-compatible websites. For this purpose, I have found Khan Academy's course for writing HTML and CSS immensely helpful in gaining a better understanding of rudimentary website design (which is actually rather simple once you get the hang of it), which can be found here:
Intro to HTML/CSS: Making webpages | Computer programming | Khan Academy
Learn how to use HTML and CSS to make webpages. HTML is the markup language that you surround content with, to tell browsers about headings, lists, tables, etc. CSS is the stylesheet language that you style the page with, to tell browsers to change the color, font, layout, and more.www.khanacademy.org
And with that knowledge, I have also found the following site useful as a sort of sandbox for designing and creating simple webpages in real time:
HTML Scratchpad Examples
www.quackit.com
Using the above resources in tandem, once you have a collection of HTML files finished and linked together, they can then be made publicly available at no charge, courtesy of Macintosh Garden Hosting (albeit under the home.macintosh.garden/~<websitename> subdomain), which currently offers 100 MB of storage space by default:
If however you desire a custom domain, an independent domain name can be affordably procured from a registrar like Namecheap, which Macintosh Garden Hosting can then host the files of for a small one time fee (this is how sites like Cornica and System 7 Today operate, for example).
Otherwise, once your website has been published, post it here so we can add it to the directory (and in the process further our epic conquest of overthrowing the bloated and institutionalized modern Web with efficiently-designed Web 1.1-compliant websites!).
-
If you find yourself at a loss deciding what subject your site will revolve around, feel free to refer to the Website Wish List in the main Wiki for ideas (which anyone can add to).
And on that note, when we have a couple more websites added, we should probably come up with some type of footer badge to signify Web 1.1-compliance for easier identification ... as well as move this resource to somewhere else (like a Macintosh Garden page), so that old browsers / computers can actually access it.
In addition, I would also like to add that unless absolutely necessary, site security should probably be limited to TLS 1.0 and / or SSL 1.0 (if at all) to preserve a wide range of browser compatibility (this will be optional if purchasing a custom domain from a registrar, and not applicable when using the home.macintosh.garden parent domain), and in my opinion, use of simple JavaScript (meaning no AJAX) should probably be restricted as much as possible to maintain site performance on very old systems, unless some feature is to be implemented that requires its use to a very minimal extent.
Also, no ads, tracking, analytics, fingerprinting, or data mining servers allowed, because those aren't fun for anyone.
-
Now with that being said, let's take this opportunity to begin our epic conquest to overthrow the bloated and institutionalized modern Web with efficiently-designed Web 1.1-compliant websites!
Happy coding!
How do we apply to get our sites added to the Personal Websites category?- Added Personal Websites category.
- Added Life Without Megapixels to Personal Websites.
- Added chat room site to Website Wish List.
Ok, thanks! I can definitely see a site being more accessible given IRC clients require a bit of config.@RogerWilco6502 Anyone can edit the WikiPost, so as long as your website is compliant with the decided Web 1.1 specification (and contains nothing that your grandfather would strongly disapprove of), feel free to add it in.
I'm not sure; all I know is that I vaguely remember visiting a couple back in the day and remarking that they were interesting places to take part in. I also think that a dedicated website would be a much more accessible solution than an IRC client ... but that's also my opinion and hence, only a wish.