
I'm a fucking webmaster - fredrivett
https://justinjackson.ca/webmaster/
======
dpcan
I love nostalgia posts. I think all of us who were "webmasters" all have a
differed "what we are now", but if everything didn't start this way for me, I
don't think I'd be doing what I am doing today regardless.

I remember making a ball bounce in Flash with some elasticity and people
wanted it on their website no matter what their website was about. The 90's
were such strange times. "Can you put that bouncing ball on my site?" I guess,
but I'm not sure what it has to do with carpet cleaning....

I still get asked to disable the right mouse button, add background music, a
counter, or make something blink or scroll, and every now and then... an
animated gif (usually of a U.S. flag).

Luckily I've been doing this long enough now to say, no, please don't do this
to yourself or your business. You've spent too much money and too much time to
throw it all away with a tiny design disaster. But they insist. Ohhhh they
insist.

~~~
devonkim
Remember huge Flash intros to sites? I overheard someone trying to add that to
a site in 2015 and being adamant that it's what people need to see because
they don't know what the site is about until they have a pretty intro.

I've noticed the people that insist on micromanaging everything like that with
web technologies tend to not stay in business very long or don't want to do
much besides pay for the website like people pay for refrigerators. Great for
the web hosting companies that will take $30 / mo on a site that gets 1000
hits / month but terrible for web designers that need repeat business once in
a while.

~~~
soft_dev_person
Today we have a huge generic image with one-three words not really stating
much and sometimes an indication that you need to start scrolling to actually
read something.

Or was that last year.

------
mijustin
OP here. This is a follow-up to my original essay: "This is a web page."

[https://justinjackson.ca/words.html](https://justinjackson.ca/words.html)

~~~
mstade
Plx 2 add webmaster@nerdnorth.com in footer khtnxbye

Seriously though, I loved reading this. Thank you!

~~~
mijustin
Hahaha. A few other folks have mentioned that too. Updated!

Have you seen [http://tomstrucking.net](http://tomstrucking.net) yet? ;)

~~~
mstade
Yes, I find the lack of under construction signs and badly alpha blended gifs
disturbing! ;o)

(By which I mean: it's a thing of beauty!)

~~~
mijustin
Oooh. I definitely need to add an under construction gif.

~~~
mstade
Loving the sign! ;o)

------
piotrkubisa
Do you have noticed that the most responsive web pages are sites without the
CSS styles(or with just few rules)? I can run such web pages even on 10 year
old mobile phone and also load a whole HTML document with a throttled
connection to 10KB/s quiet quick. The sad thing is that modern webdevelopers
tends to forget about it. Long time ago I realized the really good way of
developing a webpage is just writing down some bare HTML (maybe just a grid
and typography CSS) with only grayscale colors applied - if it will look bad
then it is a bad design.

If we are speaking of memories of the "old-ways" of developing websites I
remind mostly one thing - rounded corners. I remember how many web devs were
trying to make a table (3x3) and put content in the center cell, and fill
corners with some gifs. Nevertheless, it was not the only one method which
some webmasters were using - a hacky VML file [1]

[1] [https://code.google.com/archive/p/curved-
corner/](https://code.google.com/archive/p/curved-corner/)

------
jasode
_> And when you publish your own HTML to a server that you control; that's
fucking powerful. Autonomy and independence are central to the web. We can't
forget that.

>The world still needs some fucking webmasters. We might not all be making
websites professionally anymore. But we should keep making websites. The
passion, the freedom, the joy: we need to pass this on._

I appreciate the enthusiasm for wanting to empower people but the technology
(e.g. simpler format of HTML, or open standards instead of walled gardens,
etc) is not really the issue even though it looks that way. I've commented on
this illusion before[1].

The underlying issue is the asymmetry between active participants and passive
spectators. Most people _don 't care_ to make an HTML web page. On the other
hand... Uploading a photo of a cat or plate of food to facebook or twitter? Or
type a short response comment to a niece saying "love your new dress!"? Yes, a
good percentage of people will conquer the threshold of complexity to do
that... but it's still not the majority of users.

Even though I don't like it, I've come to terms with the fact that the human
race is "wired" to make easy posts on Facebook rather than maintain an HTML
web page on a server they control. Most people don't want to be "webmasters".

[1][https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10010540](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10010540)

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
But if web sites were easier to make, more people would make them.

In the 1990s I had friends who literally knew nothing at all about computers
but still managed to hack together their own sites with a text editor and some
persistence.

It was so easy anyone of average and above IQ could do it.

Often the results were - let's say - not that great as graphic design. But
they got the job done well enough to be useful.

So I don't think it's an illusion at all. I think the barriers to entry have
become way too high. There's certainly

If the barriers were lower, I'm not convinced we'd need FB and Tumblr and the
rest _at all._

~~~
krapp
> But if web sites were easier to make, more people would make them.

Websites are as easy to make now as they ever were. HTML from the 1990s still
works fine. The barriers to entry haven't actually moved at all.

------
krapp
>We need to remember that at its core a web page is simple. That's the beauty
of it. And when you publish your own HTML to a server that you control; that's
fucking powerful. Autonomy and independence are central to the web. We can't
forget that.

I absolutely agree.

People seem to forget that the fundamental nature of the web hasn't changed.
Facebook hasn't destroyed the web, javascript and that framework you hate
haven't destroyed the web, advertising hasn't destroyed the web (arguably, the
web has destroyed advertising), the NSA hasn't destroyed the web (yet.) You
can still open up the text editor of your choice and write some HTML and put
it on a server. That still works, and it will probably always work - human
readable, human writable, human accessible content. You can still write it all
by hand if you want, you don't have to know how to code, you're not forced to
conform to arbitrary standards, or use proprietary software.

In the end, no matter how much abstraction modern developers pile on to make
it look and act like "legitimate" application programming, the web is just
HTML, CSS, javascript and some embedded content, probably images, possibly of
cats. Sometimes, in the midst of how homogeneous and corporatized the web can
appear, I think it helps to be reminded of how revolutionary it still is
because of its fundamental simplicity and accessibility.

------
6stringmerc
A fun read and trip down memory lane, of the times sitting with an HTML book
open on my lap and trying to write code that would display what I wanted.
Being one of those artsy-fartsy types meant that I could experiment with
design. Seamless frames! Links to other pages that actually work and reference
each other! Hitting the 'Preview' screen from the editor to test things...over
and over...

...and of course, the ever lovely habit of "View Source" which leads to
interesting things. Like finding the large "Never Forget" at the top of the
linked page. Fun times.

But for sure, there _was_ a certain aura and power around being able to not
only navigate the web (OMG .WAV SOUNDS FROM MOVIES!) but put up a sign that
other people could see. Then get good enough to get paid for work doing such
things. A good reminder type essay methinks.

------
shaneckel
Some people want to be left alone in their html `pages` club where they check
for errors in the w3c validator. Some people want to make the browser usurp
native applications and become the baseline for user interactions.

I don't look back at the 90's with rose-colored glasses. Web was often
overlooked and we were considered 2nd rate citizens among `real` software
developers. These days, the browser is a competitive alternative to native and
it was years of struggle to get here. Over taking a decade of "web"
understanding and convincing people that "web" is capable of more than just
html.

The web is made up of people's decisions and their technology choices they
choose to use. Which is basically written in every alistapart article since
1999. So let's not sit in nostalgia. Push forward with better technology
because this thinking only makes it harder for those that invent and
struggling for adoption from `thought leaders` who wish the world was just a
series of hyperlinked XML pages.

------
dmix
The link to the "Sporks" website is hilarious, it even has an order form for
"sporks gear":

> Do not do this. There are no shirts. This site is 20 years old. What's wrong
> with you?

[https://www.spork.org/spork-gear.shtml](https://www.spork.org/spork-
gear.shtml)

And this anti-IE site has some nice badges we can still add to our websites:

[http://toastytech.com/evil/buttons.html](http://toastytech.com/evil/buttons.html)

------
partycoder
Well now blogs and feed based websites have mostly replaced the end-user need
to craft their own websites.

The convenience does not come at zero cost, though. This is putting power in
too few hands. A few people decide how the web looks like, what is possible
and what is not.

Facebook is now the new Internet Explorer, an unavoidable entity that dictates
what the web experience is like.

------
duderific
It's so refreshing to see good 'ol blue links, that are underlined and stand
out accordingly from the rest of the copy. So many sites try to get too fancy
with links nowadays and you can't even tell what is a link and what isn't.

------
exodust
Cool, but disappointed his name at the end links to Twitter - he just undid
everything he just said.

His name should link to his homepage or about page, of which he has no links
to from the article. These pages are IMHO a million times more interesting
than the frankly awful mess Twitter has made of profile homepages. What with
the big fonts on some tweets - I don't know why some tweets have large fonts.
A good interface would instantly make it clear why.

------
jyotiska
This is exactly the reason I created minni -
[https://github.com/jyotiska/minni](https://github.com/jyotiska/minni), a
static site generator I use to host my own blog. Link to the blog -
[http://jyotiska.github.io/blog/](http://jyotiska.github.io/blog/). Simple,
clean and content only.

~~~
glenntzke
The link you wanted was
[https://github.com/jyotiska/minni](https://github.com/jyotiska/minni) as the
one you provided links to a different github user :)

~~~
jyotiska
Oops! Fixed it. Thanks for pointing out.

------
raddad
I remember when bandwidth was at a premium and 1200 baud was fast. There were
pleas everywhere to use simple html, white text on black. Images were links to
download if you wanted to view them and encouraged only if they added to the
content. Nobody was trying to make the web into television.

~~~
mbreese
When 1200 baud was fast there were no pleas to use simple html - there was no
html!

You might have had me with 56k or even 28.8kbps (V.92!), but 1200 baud. When
1200 baud was fast - yes, everywhere was simple text on the screen (maybe ANSI
colors), but more along the lines of Compuserve or a BBS. And yes, you had to
download images. The best were the progressive scan ones where you could view
the incomplete images as they downloaded.

Ah, the memories...

~~~
bphogan
I had a 28.8k modem.

But my internet connection was rural, and 1200 baud. It was possible.

~~~
mbreese
I believe it, but that wasn't considered fast at the time. And your point is
definitely valid - there were web page size optimizations done with dial-up
users in mind. I even remember programs that simulated loading time at
different download speeds.

But around 1980, 1200 baud was considered lightning fast! Imagine the jump
from 300 to 1200 baud. But back then, HTML wasn't even a consideration and
network connections were completely text-based sessions. If you were lucky,
you had some control over colors. _If_ you were lucky...

~~~
bphogan
All I'm saying is that when there were 28.8 modems, people in rural areas
didn't always see those. In 1995. When you could do simple tables, images, and
font colors. I remember it well because I worked with a rural ISP to make
their web page.

------
virtuexru
Ahh the good old day's of shoving images into tables to create a layout.

------
syoc
Wanted to check out his root site. Not really sure if he is walking the walk
[https://justinjackson.ca/](https://justinjackson.ca/)

~~~
soared
Wordpress, 3+ plugins, 55kb.

------
debaserab2
I can empathize with the message of this essay because I feel like it reflects
the roots of my career, but I wouldn't share this with anyone I know because
there is so much unnecessary cursing in this that gives it a really immature
feel. You can totally get the message of this across without the crass
language. It only detracts, not helps, in my opinion.

I'm saying this as someone who swears a lot, too.

~~~
preordained
Disagree. For emphasis on the power of being a "webmaster" AND to capture what
that meant in the cultural vernacular of various pipsqueaks who claimed that
title when it was a thing, you could do little better than a qualifier like
"fucking" or "motherfucking" or "goddamn". You could for instance, write this
with a theme embodied like, "I am webmaster, hear me roar" or "webmaster of my
domain or something", but I think you are simply sanitizing the ego-boosting
high and kind of crass thinking that often came with discovering that
particular power, at that particular time. For an ancient courtier who
discovered how he can manipulate the realm, you could probably expect a much
more refined if still ego-laden expression of that power.

~~~
debaserab2
It doesn't read that way to me, it just reads as an adjective to make the
article more "shocking" and illustrate the role of a webmaster to appear more
against the grain of our little IT/startup world.

I think the rest of the essay does a great job of explaining why and how
webmasters were so important and how they were/are the ultimate problem
solver. No ego boosting qualifiers necessary.

~~~
coldtea
Mainly those who are indeed somewhat shocked (usually due to some still active
puritan heritage) actually think that such words were meant to "make the
article more 'shocking'".

The rest don't even blink when we see them -- especially from countries
without a history of a prudish outlook on things.

One can see people getting slashed with knives and shot in the head on PG13
movies -- words like these are nothing compared to that.

~~~
debaserab2
The primary use of cursing is when one is frustrated or angry and wants to
draw attention to an issue. I think it's safe to say that adding a swear word
to a title is going to draw attention to the title simply because the use of
the swear word.

I'm not shocked, I'm just bored of the "I'm a fucking <nostalgic or out of
style thing>" or "This fucking <nostalgic or out of style thing>" trend. Just
because swearing hasn't become so blasé to a person doesn't mean they have an
"active puritan heritage".

------
scrumper
I think this needs to be in a nostalgia webring.

------
henrylim96
This is awesome :)

~~~
mikepalmer
correction: it is fucking awesome

------
scelerat
Why do I need to make a website? I've got a Twitter feed and a Facebook page.

------
gjolund
Reminds me of this

[http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/](http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/)

I wonder if it is the same guy.

Edit: Nope, @thebarrytone made mfw.com

~~~
nickfrostatx
See also:
[http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com](http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com)

~~~
niccaluim
Ugh, more of this low-contrast nonsense. Give me black text or give me death.

~~~
bobwaycott
This one is obviously for you:
[https://bestmotherfucking.website/](https://bestmotherfucking.website/)

------
stevenh
Are the profanities really necessary? I guess they are, considering you're
using them as a crutch for the lack of anything interesting to say.

~~~
tlackemann
I suppose you should've used some yourself.

