From: nunojsilva@invalid.invalid   
      
   On 2025-12-22, John Ames wrote:   
      
   > On 22 Dec 2025 08:14:15 +1000   
   > not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:   
   >   
   >> That's perfectly reasonable in my book. I don't believe in   
   >> specifying exact fonts, sizes, etc. via CSS. Use  in plain   
   >> HTML if you want small text and the user can configure their   
   >> browser to display it in the way that works for them. Except where   
   >> some browser makers choose silly default behaviours for some   
   >> elements, plain HTML (4.0 Transitional) works to the user's best   
   >> advantage. I do most of my browsing with CSS turned off so all that   
   >> styling nonsense is ignored.   
   >   
   > I do use some basic CSS for basic theming and layout, but overall I   
   > agree that treating webpages as a medium for graphic design (not to   
   > mention gimmicky JS navigation that all too often breaks standard   
   > browser-navigation conventions) is wrong-headed and counterproductive,   
   > if not outright abusive. Unfortunately, "wrong-headed, counter-   
   > productive, and abusive" is the name of the game in this year of our   
   > Lord 2025 :/   
      
   I feel like linking   
      
   https://raw.githubusercontent.com/thepracticaldev/orly-full-res/   
   aster/breakingthebackbutton-big.png   
      
   (Text description which I used in a post [1] on a platform where this   
   problem is present (Mastodon, in the official web UI):   
      
   > O'Reilly-style "Animal Book" cover, featuring a shark. On top has the   
   > text "Ruining something the browser gave you for free".The book title   
   > reads "Breaking the Back Button: Fragile Development Guide" (Image by   
   > @ThePracticalDev, CC BY-NC 2.0,   
   > https://github.com/thepracticaldev/orly-full-res )   
   )   
      
   [1] https://social.sdf.org/@njsg/110587665362892865   
      
      
   On 2025-12-22, John Ames wrote: (cont'd)   
   >   
   > Whether it's things like hijacking or "papering over" links with CSS   
   > constructs that make it impossible to get to one page without going   
   > through another page first and artificially boosting page views thereby   
   > (looking at you, YouTube,) designing layouts that are completely non-   
   > functional if assumptions about DPI/resolution aren't met, requiring JS   
   > to display static page content, or any of a dozen other common abuses,   
   > it's absolutely epidemic - and while I can keep my own little corner of   
   > the Web tidy and sane, and I've seen an encouraging trend in that   
   > direction among young hackers and hacker-adjacent blogosphere types,   
   > there's only so far you can go without being exposed to some godawful   
   > bletcherous monstrosity of mainstream web design. It's enough to make   
   > you long for Gopher...   
      
   Mastodon's official web UI is quite strong on these issues. It's amazing   
   that you get more from a "page info" dialog with the metadata than from   
   looking at a post page without Javascript. That is, they are serving the   
   post content inside HEAD as metadata, but refuse to make it easy to load   
   it without JS. Even if it required JS to load replies, it's already   
   serving text and images from the post, so it'd not cost more to put it   
   in the body...   
      
      
   --   
   Nuno Silva   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)