>/g/ would argue that this looks better than modern sites

I'm pretty sure /g/ has never praised the font rendering of Windows.

>>57738298
doesn't require 50 nested scripts running

There's a huge difference between working better and looking better.

>>57738298
no javascript

>>57738298
If you like sites looking like this you probably like going to Drudge Report.

>>57738298
Doesn't invade your privacy
uses kilobytes of bandwidth instead of megabytes
places function over form. emphasizes information and not content-free tinsel
works on a much wider array of devices, doesn't reinforce the planned-obsolescence cycle
blazing fast even on very weak devices, due to the above low resource usage
simpler and faster to build and debug

so OP, do you have any real argument against this kind of design, other than that you're shallower than modern teenage girls, and care about nothing but how something looks?

>>57739891
How it this more functional? Does it even have a search functionality?

>>57738298
I work at amazon (aws really) and i think the current retail site looks like garbage.

>>57739951
Yes.

>>57739951
Simple, consistent UI. Text with links, a few images where needed. No surprises, nothing hidden in a "hamburger menu" that might not even work correctly.

You can easily implement search functionality with Web 1.0 methods, and plenty of sites did, though the screenshot happens to show it behind a link instead of as a search box. Search engines existed back then, yknow.

How does all the junk you find on modern websites, like pointless animations and tracking scrips, enhance functionality?

>>57738298

What >>57738403 said pretty much.

Even google.com takes longer today to load than it did ten years ago.

>>57739951
>How it this more functional? Does it even have a search functionality?

How is it not functional??

Of course it had a search functionality back then, You need to go browse the internet archive.

>>57739951
>search our catalog of over 1 million books

>>57738315
Fucking this.

>>57738298
>simple layout
>content readily accessible
looks like it ticks the boxes anon

>>57738315
/thread

>>57738313
Fpbp!

But we do get this influx of winbabbies from /v/, maybe someone have said something from there

Too many graphics.

>>57738298
>simple layout
>loads 10 times quicker
>looks nice and readable on all platforms on all browsers and feels responsive
>doesn't require javascript to load "dynamic" content
>no pointless buttons with slow animations

yeah, I don't see why it's better

>>57738298
Are there any guides on making good-looking "modern" websites without a single line of javascript?
Once I've seen pure html thing with some gifs and menus that popped out with smooth animation like your generic 250MB node.js landing page.

>>57744777
https://github.com/you-dont-need/You-Dont-Need-Javascript

>>57744831
https://s.codepen.io/pavlovsk/debug/sjubp
Lmao