hey just curious, any reason why some of these articles I see from time to time don't apply some simply CSS? I don't mind the raw html, I'm mostly wondering if there's some benefit to it that I might not be aware of.
Just a guess, but the folks interested in low level graphics programming are probably the same people who would want to stay away from bloated frontends?
A simple blog post doesn't need super fancy design when its content can speak for itself.
Indeed. I used as little CSS as I could because I love minimalist websites. And the lack of syntax highlighting was inspired by Go blog, for example. :)
Raw HTML definitely looks much uglier, sadly (“Reader mode” in most browsers makes websites without CSS easily readable, though!).
Your site looks nice and is quite readable! The thing I most dislike about sites that just use raw HTML is the lack of `max-width` on the text containers (which makes using reader mode necessary), so thanks for including that
pretty much all HTML, with only the bare minimum CSS to make it somewhat responsive.
I guess if you want one tiny piece of feedback, based on the above site:
>A little less contrast
>Black on white? How often do you see that kind of contrast in real life? Tone it down a bit, asshole. I would've even made this site's background a nice #EEEEEE if I wasn't so focused on keeping declarations to a lean 7 fucking lines.
I agree with the advice, but I've definitely seen many a heated debate over raw black on raw white amongst designers. So take with a grain of salt and a handful of personal preference.
> Black on white? How often do you see that kind of contrast in real life?
In books. If you have really high-end hardware where you have enough contrast to be painful, turn down your contrast setting. On regular-person devices, grey-on-grey is needlessly hard to read, and there's no way to turn the contrast up without introducing clipping.
