The focus of website layouts these days.

[dragos240]

Back when the internet was getting started, there wasn't much on a website, there may have been a tiled background, and some text. But not much else. Now, we have flash, java, PHP, and other things, such as large downloads. But about those people who still use dial-up, these things take forever. Is there a website that displays that old style but still looks modern. Simple, light, and attractive? Just curious.

[NMFTM]

You could use a text only browser, like Lynx.

[dragos240]

Well yeah. But the loading time for a dial up user would be the same (I think).

Any examples of a semi-modern look mixed with a web page that is less than 100kB.

[nmccrina]

Turn off Java and Javascript, except for sites you absolutely need them?

I agree wholeheartedly, by the way. The Verizon Wireless site is a perfect example of bloat. It takes 30 seconds to load a page, on a cable connection.

[benerivo]

Changing the browser identifier to a mobile device can cause some websites to load special low graphics versions such as...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mobile/
http://m.mlb.com/

[wojox]

If your using Firefox install NoScript https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/722

[Simian Man]

Here ya go. (http://wonder-tonic.com/geocitiesizer/)

(I know that doesn't actually help you)

[Sporkman]

Is there a website that displays that old style but still looks modern. Simple, light, and attractive? Just curious.

http://www.craigslist.org

[MichealH]

Surprisingly mine is below 100KB and It is HTML5

www.michealh.co.cc

[conradin]

Is this question about browsers or websites?

[sdlynx]

Surprisingly mine is below 100KB and It is HTML5

Mine as well:

44.44 KB (45,511 bytes)

(Sig has URL)

[buddyd16]

The website I made for my company is well below 100kb, well when you discount the images. It is done purely in html and css.

www.structura-inc.com (http://www.structura-inc.com)

[MaxIBoy]

Well yeah. But the loading time for a dial up user would be the same (I think).Not so. Keep in mind the images, flash, videos, etc. are not in the same file as the HTML. So your browser parses the HTML and then sources the images and stuff. Text-only browsers skip that step.

By the way, links2 is better than lynx. It has tabs and it can render with real fonts on a framebuffer.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Well yeah. But the loading time for a dial up user would be the same (I think).

It certainly isn't. An HTML document is very small, plain text stuff - maybe 25kb for a big one. Every bit of heavy content you mentioned is an external file that the HTML links to, and the browser chooses to load separately. So, if you're using Lynx, it just won't request images, Flash, js files, etc.

PHP, on the other hand, has no impact whatsoever on the client; it's all in the server and simply changes the content (eg: an html file) that gets sent.

[dragos240]

Not so. Keep in mind the images, flash, videos, etc. are not in the same file as the HTML. So your browser parses the HTML and then sources the images and stuff. Text-only browsers skip that step.

By the way, links2 is better than lynx. It has tabs and it can render with real fonts on a framebuffer.

Links2 has tabs? I know links2 is better than lynx.

[iduppe]

ff addon imglike opera?

[MaxIBoy]

Whoops, I was thinking of Hacked Links (which is the browser I use on Plan9.) It's Links2 with some ELinks features ported, such as tabs and Lua scripting. On my plan 9 setup, the command line for it is still "links," so that's probably why I was confused.

[dragos240]

Whoops, I was thinking of Hacked Links (which is the browser I use on Plan9.) It's Links2 with some ELinks features ported, such as tabs and Lua scripting. On my plan 9 setup, the command line for it is still "links," so that's probably why I was confused.

You use plan 9 from bell labs? How is it. And more importantly, how good is the driver support.

[MaxIBoy]

See my answer here:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=9244320#post9244320