[HN Gopher] My daughter (7 years old) used HTML to make a website
___________________________________________________________________
My daughter (7 years old) used HTML to make a website
Author : fintler
Score : 907 points
Date : 2024-07-18 06:24 UTC (16 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (naya.lol)
(TXT) w3m dump (naya.lol)
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| Not a bad looking website. I like it better than most of that
| responsive CSS/JS bloated nightmares out there. I wish more
| websites were faster loading like this one.
| kristopolous wrote:
| try searching with https://teclis.com/ ...
|
| Just type in some word like "cat" and click on the links. They
| are kinda all like that.
| mFixman wrote:
| This is a fantastic website. Thanks for the link!
| kristopolous wrote:
| The web is a lot like music and movies. There's the
| mainstream pop stuff and then there's the other 99.99%
| which is easy to forget unless you are intentional about
| engaging it
| k1ck4ss wrote:
| I entered "mercedes w204" and found bloated stuff
| kristopolous wrote:
| I think the true filter, in practice, is to filter out
| sites with spyware or adware.
|
| This tends towards cleaner sites and really it's the only
| stable fix for SEO spam
| squidbeak wrote:
| Steady on. In what conceivable way is a few lines of CSS
| comparable to a ream of JS?
| isoprophlex wrote:
| Wow, great stuff. Tell her she did a fantastic job!
|
| ---
|
| By necessity, kids these days don't even need to learn what a
| file is. Videos are "on youtube". Documents are stored "in ms
| word".
|
| The median developer even seems to have a very shallow
| understanding of how a computer actually works. And why would
| they, if they can just glue some Lambdas together to earn a buck?
|
| ---
|
| Praise those that look a bit deeper and really want to know how a
| thing works, how you can create something truly original with a
| tool, instead of simply using it along the happy path.
| falcor84 wrote:
| Files are an abstraction that was very useful in the last
| several decades, but that just isn't as relevant in the current
| world. Those videos and documents you mentioned are likely
| managed via object storage in a distributed database, itself
| possibly using block storage directly, with no actual "file" in
| an old-school filesystem anywhere in sight.
|
| I still personally cling to files personally, but I have no
| real reason to believe that they are a fundamental abstraction
| that is more true than cloud lambdas.
| isoprophlex wrote:
| Sure, call them byte streams or blobs, that's fine too. I'm
| not disagreeing, but the point I wanted to make was that
| recently, people seem to have gotten the idea that their
| objects are semi-magical things locked into some app or some
| cloud service. Which is fine by the SaaS providers, or
| course. But it doesn't really foster understanding of the
| world around you.
|
| Like kids thinking corn comes from the corn factory.
| lkdfjlkdfjlg wrote:
| When I was a kid I used to think that pasta came from a
| pasta factory.
| defrost wrote:
| When we were children we were taught about the spaghetti
| harvest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVo_wkxH9dU
| wheybags wrote:
| Hah, so young and foolish. Everyone knows pasta grows on
| trees: https://youtube.com/watch?v=8scpGwbvxvI
| falcor84 wrote:
| I think that part of the reason for my thinking is that
| I've recently been playing around with USD (Universal Scene
| Description). It is currently mostly based on files, but I
| find the underlying representation - of layers of atomic
| properties being composed together in a massive tree - to
| be very elegant, and it can be managed in a database
| without any files or blobs anywhere.
|
| As another example: in the early web, behind every url was
| a file (with an actual file extension), but then we
| abstracted them into resources, and I feel that this
| coincided with an evolution of the field.
|
| The concept of a file or blob will probably still be useful
| in some capacity for decades to come, but I wouldn't want
| it to hinder us from realizing better abstractions.
| jen729w wrote:
| Until you try creating one of those videos, and now you need
| .movs and .mp3s and .pngs and a place to store the render
| output.
|
| Files have a way to go yet.
| jen729w wrote:
| _Also_ , replying to myself, have you ever had a job? At a
| place? Where the primary function isn't coding?
|
| Files are _everywhere_. They are _every-thing_. Except now,
| thanks to the disaster that is SharePoint, nobody has a
| fucking idea where they are any more. Because they 've been
| abstracted away by some genius on the Teams team.
|
| So nobody can find what they were just working on. Or they
| have no idea if the thing they find is the right version.
| It's a total shambles.
|
| A hierarchical file system was boring, but it worked. And
| it still does.
|
| Disclosure: I'm Johnny.Decimal and my business depends on
| files still being a thing.
| moffkalast wrote:
| I can't believe I'm seriously reading a discussion around
| the existence of files, what is this, an SNL sketch?
|
| This very site is being served from a file system.
| HenryBemis wrote:
| I don't think the comment was about the "file system",
| more like about the "humans" that dump every file they
| have to whichever folder they find available, and in the
| end of the day/week/month/year nobody knows where that
| file is.
|
| And then the person leaves the company/org and this file
| will float in space (SharePoint) forever, never to be
| recalled again, never to be read again, alone, in a cold
| world (computer room).
|
| Speaking about SNL sketch.. it reminded me James
| Cameron's reaction on the Papyrus sketch -->
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wm1-k__LF40
| yieldcrv wrote:
| You'd be surprised! With many apps on the iPhone you can
| get by
|
| Edit a video? Built in app, or your social media app is
| already loaded with that and you can save state instead of
| posting
|
| Reverse a video? There's an app for that which just goes
| back into your Photos app to let you tried that content
|
| and so on
|
| people dont need to have that mental model until something
| breaks
| jen729w wrote:
| Right, but those videos are amateur and get 200 views on
| TikTok.
|
| You want to produce a video of any quality at all? You're
| using files.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| source quality and editing prowess doesnt matters at all
| for views
|
| and you can edit in high quality on an iphone, higher
| than what's necessary to view on an iphone
|
| so, two premises that arent substantiated
| jen729w wrote:
| Show me a million-view TikToker that does it unedited
| with no files.
|
| They might exist. I don't watch TT, I'm happy to be
| wrong.
|
| But MKBHD, Justine, Mr. Beast, CGP Grey -- you name 'em,
| they use files to edit a production.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| That's such a random bar with such random outliers
|
| Someone that doesn't watch tiktok thinks a millions views
| is a lot there
|
| Stick with YouTube your worldview isn't relevant this
| decade
| dkdbejwi383 wrote:
| Abstractions will start coming and they don't stop coming.
|
| People in the late 90s/early 2000s probably complained about
| people like me who learned about HTML but only had a shallow
| understanding of how laying out a GUI and text rendering works.
| Which why would we, when we could just glue some HTML together
| to make a Chrono Trigger fan site?
| kijin wrote:
| Abstractions are fine. Everything we do is a dozen layers of
| abstraction on top of the metal anyway.
|
| It just happens that people who know how the bits actually
| move underneath the abstractions tend to be better at solving
| problems related to those abstractions, than those who don't.
| memen wrote:
| There are problems where understanding one level below the
| abstractions indeed leads to better solutions. However, I
| would argue that for a large set of problems, this is not
| the case. I think being aware of the abstraction (at
| multiple levels) would lead you to choose the right
| abstraction level for solving the problem. Of course, apart
| from school assignments, these abstraction levels are never
| given with a certain problem, so the more you know, the
| better you'll be able to see it.
| bossyTeacher wrote:
| To be honest, being able to think about things in
| multiple levels of abstraction is an advantage no matter
| what level you are (writing assembly or writing react)
| kijin wrote:
| It's because abstractions always leak. You are never
| completely insulated from the levels above or below you,
| nor sideways from the other components you interact with.
| bossyTeacher wrote:
| Exactly. I said a variation of this and some user flagged my
| comment.
| fransje26 wrote:
| > By necessity, kids these days don't even need to learn what a
| file is. Videos are "on youtube". Documents are stored "in ms
| word".
|
| Coincidentally, I've been thinking about that recently. My
| conclusion was that this couldn't be true, as it didn't make
| any sense.
|
| I mean, even when using a phone or a tablet, the pictures they
| take or the videos they make end up somewhere. And that
| somewhere must be found, to be able to upload their take to the
| app or the website of their choice, or to be edited in an app
| before uploading.
|
| So by extension, as that medium is "somewhere" on their device,
| they must be able, intuitively, to deduce the concept of a
| file?
|
| And the take on the median developer frightens me even more.
| Somehow it feels akin to giving a soldier a firearm and letting
| him off to go and fight. Surely that's going to end in
| disaster? Praise those that look a bit deeper
| and really want to know how a thing works
|
| Are people really that hermetic to understanding how the items
| and tool they use actually work?
| kapitanjakc wrote:
| > Are people really that hermetic to understanding how the
| items and tool they use actually work?
|
| From what I've seen in some of our new recruits, yes. And
| those are technically educated people.
|
| In general public, I've noticed that if stuff is working
| well, people don't tend to take a deep look into how it
| works.
|
| I guess that's how different minds work right ? For example a
| curious mind wants to know how a thing behaves and how it
| works etc, whereas a visual mind would look for how it looks.
| fransje26 wrote:
| > From what I've seen in some of our new recruits, yes. And
| those are technically educated people.
|
| That's really the part I can't wrap my head around.. The
| first thing I tend to do when I encounter something new -a
| new phone, a new bike, new tools, etc- is to understand how
| it works, to see what I can do with it, what its limits
| are, and most importantly, if I can bend those limits to
| suit my needs..
|
| Accepting something at face value is really not an option.
| Partly because, more often than not, that would also mean
| settling for mediocrity as "quality" seems to be a
| secondary target nowadays. Thing will not work how you
| want, things will break and will need to be repaired, some
| artificial constraints might be need to be circumvented.
| And on the other hand, there is always something
| interesting that can be learned by being curious.
|
| We are not all wired the same. But if the "technically
| educated" people are no longer "technical" than at least I
| shouldn't fear about future employability.
| Arch485 wrote:
| I'm 22, and most of my "not tech savvy" peers and anyone I've
| met under 20 have zero concept of how most tech actually
| works.
|
| The pictures taken on your phone are not "stored somewhere",
| they are stored "in Google" or "in iCloud" or "in the photos
| app". Documents are similarily "in Google" or "in Word".
| There's no intuitive relation between photos and documents
| being the same thing on the filesystem, nor is there a
| concept of the filesystem at all. Generally, things jusr
| "work" (until they don't) and nobody asks any questions.
|
| Now, I would like to clarify that this isn't a "darn kids
| these days" tangent, in fact, it's the opposite: darn adults
| these days won't teach their kids how to use the computer!
|
| I would expect/really hope that when my generation starts
| having kids, computer literacy will start going up again. But
| for now, it's totally in the drain.
|
| With respect to developers... Most of them know a lot less
| than they should. This is also an education/incentives
| problem.
| bossyTeacher wrote:
| > darn adults these days won't teach their kids how to use
| the computer!
|
| I would bet most of the greyhaired people on here as well
| as those who were born at the time of the personal computer
| revolution didn't have parents who were proficient in a
| technology that was literally just made available to
| consumers yet those kids learn to use a computer on their
| own at a time where there was no internet available to
| check.
|
| Why do kids suddenly need to be taught personally when they
| are the first generation to have the greatest amount of
| resources to learn how to use a computer available for
| free, in multiple teaching styles, multiple formats, at
| different levels of detail?
|
| I feel this is related to the helicopter parent mentality
| that replaced parenting styles from earlier periods
| Arch485 wrote:
| It ain't that deep. Back then, you had to understand the
| lower level concepts in order to use the computer...
| Nowadays, you don't. It's that simple.
| bossyTeacher wrote:
| Still an abstraction if you don't understand how each of
| the parts of the computer work. And that level of detail
| goes all the way down to the actual implementation of the
| logic gates. One who could also include how your monitor
| display work and the keyboard.
|
| Lower is not lowest.
| zikduruqe wrote:
| I am the last generation that helped my parents with technical
| setup and support, and my children with technical setup and
| support.
| drited wrote:
| For the childrens' sake I hope so. Parental accumulated tech
| debt from not keeping up with developments is stressful to
| deal with!
|
| Looking around though I think it's going to depend on what
| industry parents are in. There's still a lot of cluelessness
| around even among people who have grown up in an era of
| computers.
| crngefest wrote:
| Very cute!
|
| I did something similar with my dad when I was a kid. First basic
| HTML then Dreamweaver.
|
| A couple years down the road and I'm working at a SaaS company.
|
| Beware.
| berkes wrote:
| Me too. First framesets, handcrafted. Then Dreamweaver and
| Photoshop slicing (forgot what this monstrosity was called).
| Via PHP portals, CMSes (Drupal!).
|
| Decades later I'm tuning YAML files that trigger ansible runs
| on CIs that compile docker images in which we embed hundreds of
| npm packages that get transpiled from typescript. Which gets
| released to cloud serverless edge thingies that store stuff in
| a database and on some block storage. All to serve a page
| that's similar in information and feature-density to what I
| handcrafted back in 1999 in notepad.exe. Yet hundreds of times
| the size, thousands of times more complex and much, much slower
| to run and load.
|
| (I'm not exaggerating, but I did pick the worst example. Most
| of my work is building backend stuff in rust, simple static
| sites in hugo or jekyll and occasionally sime JS or TS to spice
| these static sites up with client-side features)
| freedomben wrote:
| > All to serve a page that's similar in information and
| feature-density to what I handcrafted back in 1999 in
| notepad.exe. Yet hundreds of times the size, thousands of
| times more complex and much, much slower to run and load.
|
| Seriously, I think about this quite often. I recently found
| some old code that I wrote in the early 00s and it was
| wonderfully simple, and aside from a few visual trends that
| have changed, it looks pretty damn good. Straightforward
| layout, good information density, and very clean. The best
| part is the code is vastly simpler than anything I've
| seen/built in the last couple of decades (especially since
| CSS, packers/transpilers, etc started arriving). I grant that
| there are some good reasons to introduce CSS and divs and all
| that, and that once we've done that it is inconsistent to
| have some things done in html and others in css, but
| sometimes philosophically better isn't better in practice.
| Sometimes.
| sausajez wrote:
| I just had a visceral reaction to reading Dreamweaver... god
| those were not the days haha
| crngefest wrote:
| Oh yea in hindsight it would have been better to just stay in
| the editor and write HTML - but I was a kid and Dreamweaver
| was pretty easy to use. Although I did hit its limits pretty
| soon and tried to mess around with the code.
| galkk wrote:
| Dreamweaver was high end. Beginners used Frontpage
| samgranieri wrote:
| I remember as a kid (like at 13 or 14) using BBEdit then Adobe
| PageMill
| awslattery wrote:
| There was something special about being a kid and pushing an
| update to your site via SFTP on the sidebar in Dreamweaver,
| then calling or hitting up your friends on AIM/MSN messenger to
| check it out.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| "Did you know that a cat can fall from a 32 story building and
| survive!"
|
| I love how this ends on an exclamation mark and not a question
| mark. Obvious in hindsight.
| sunnybeetroot wrote:
| Love it! Well done Naya, the information on the page is
| excellent!
|
| By any chance was this made on a tablet? I see it mentions
| "tablet... make a website". Perhaps if children grow up having
| accessing to tablets over computers, making websites on them
| won't seem as foreign compared to a computer.
| fintler wrote:
| She made it on a macbook using textedit and the finder, but day
| to day, she tends to use a tablet.
| foobarian wrote:
| Mine prefers tablet mostly, but every now and then she will
| ask to use the PC for some Roblox thing that only works on PC
| and I give her no end of grief for that :-)
| dgb23 wrote:
| > A dog that my aunt has uses a button to tell her if she's
| hungry or tired.
|
| I'm intrigued! We also have two dogs and the more I know them,
| the more I'm fascinated by their ability to tell us exactly what
| they feel. I didn't know they can learn to use buttons to do
| this.
| Neurocynic wrote:
| Have fun - https://www.hungerforwords.com/
| isoprophlex wrote:
| Holy fuck that's incredibly interesting! The dog knows it's
| own name, composes multi word sentences... that's
| consciousness and volition on par with humans.
| mavhc wrote:
| https://neurosciencenews.com/animal-communication-18280/
| sandman83 wrote:
| she's done an amazing job! More motivation to teach my 6.5 year
| old something about HTML
| raleighm wrote:
| Well done.
| saghul wrote:
| Love it! The background is awesome! The 90s / early 2000s vibes
| this gives! Looks straight out of geocities and I love it. Great
| work Naya!
| fintler wrote:
| She picked the image from a search and download it, then I had
| her open it up in Preview and set the transparency. Worked out
| well.
| nicholasbraker wrote:
| Very nice! And I actually learned something about cats. Never
| knew they can see a little bit behind them ;-)
| voidUpdate wrote:
| smh, wheres the responsive react frontend and the database and
| nodejs backend? /s :P
| louwhopley wrote:
| ...and the websockets!?
| sdoering wrote:
| Wow. This is so much better than what I created as my first
| website in 1997 when I was 19 years old.
|
| I am deeply impressed.
| sachinjain wrote:
| This looks like a solid first step. I am also teaching my 8yo a
| bit of coding, starting with HTML but he complains about a lot of
| typing, he is slow in typing so it becomes painful for him.
|
| Did your daughter face this problem?
| fintler wrote:
| We have her setup with iMessage (with screen time to limit who
| she's talking with), so she chats with the family pretty often.
| I think that may have helped with typing speed.
| puttycat wrote:
| I wish all websites looked like this again. Great job!
| omneity wrote:
| Great work! Back in the day (when I was about 9 years old) I did
| something similar but for my poetry and dinosaur related
| interests, and that kicked off my still ongoing multi-decade
| journey in web development.
|
| Ah the good old days :')
| eitland wrote:
| She really nailed page load speed and to a large degree UX (links
| are clearly links, navigation just works).
|
| Many large companies have wasted lots of money on performance and
| UX while still being worse than this!
| RobertJaTomsons wrote:
| I love this domain name so much. <3 Great job to your daughter.
| isatty wrote:
| This is great, it looks nice, works exactly as one would expect
| it to (very links, no clickbait), cats (the internet was made for
| cats after all) and loads instantly.
| dchest wrote:
| <img src="catcute.jpg" width="500px" height="400px" ></img>
|
| Width and height must be specified without units (although looks
| like browsers accept it, probably by ignoring the unit). IMG tags
| are self-closing, so you can omit </img> <img
| src="wool.jpg" width="500px" height="400px" ></img>
|
| The dog picture has wrong aspect ratio. The dog is squeezed! It
| should be 620 x 349 or, if 500 width or 400 height is needed,
| there's a good mathematical task to calculate the size of the
| other side. <br/>
|
| No need for / in HTML. unicorn.html
| unicorncopy.html
|
| Page for cats is named unicorn.html! and for computers it's
| unicorncopy!!!
|
| PS I don't like that CloudFlare Pages strips .html. Too magical.
| isoprophlex wrote:
| Is this code review of HTML written by a 7 year old too
| hackernews, or just hackernews enough? Who can tell!
| dchest wrote:
| Yes.
| cowsaymoo wrote:
| When the Trump assassination attempt happened last week and
| every single post on here was still about computers that's
| when I realized this place is different
| halfmatthalfcat wrote:
| We need our safe space.
| echoangle wrote:
| Isn't that kind of on purpose though? I think you will get
| flagged if you just post general news articles. It looks
| like political posts are only accepted if they have some
| relation to technology.
| latexr wrote:
| It's not a secret HN is not a site for general news. That's
| the _first_ item in the guidelines:
|
| > What to Submit
|
| > (...)
|
| > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or
| sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some
| interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or
| disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on
| TV news, it's probably off-topic.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| It is _because_ you'd hear about that anywhere and
| everywhere else that it doesn't belong here. Would you
| complain that a forum about cooking or sharing wallpapers
| didn't cover the news as well?
|
| Though it was submitted and discussed anyway, which always
| happens. That can be confirmed with your own keywords.
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&qu
| e...
| j45 wrote:
| There do seem to be posts.
|
| I'm not sure of the activity level of HN at the time it
| occurred.
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastWeek&page=0&prefix=fa
| l...
| throwaway3306a wrote:
| That's why I come here instead of other places.
| orwin wrote:
| I wouldn't mind reading about it here in like 2 weeks to a
| month tbh, but clearly I don't come here to read 'worldly
| news'.
| latexr wrote:
| Don't 7 year olds deserve to learn how to improve too? The
| comment doesn't appear to be done aggressively or in bad
| faith, so what's the issue? Presumably it will be the parent
| who'll read the comment, and they can pass it on or not
| depending on what they think the kid would prefer and/or
| would let them grow.
|
| Ironically, I find the most HN comments of all to be the ones
| who complain about something being too HN.
|
| Which is not to say your comment wasn't humorous, but let's
| not be too quick to cast stones.
| jnsie wrote:
| Unsolicited critique is almost always unwelcome critique,
| in my experience. Especially where someone else's 7 year
| old is concerned.
| latexr wrote:
| Respectfully, if you see the comment as critique, that's
| on you. It could just as easily be described as
| "unsolicited advice" or "unsolicited tips".
|
| The communicator does have responsibility on how their
| message comes across, thought not all of it. It's on the
| receiver to also make an effort to understand what was
| meant and not take unnecessary offence. The comment reads
| pretty much neutral, apart from a post scriptum which is
| explicitly about the author's preference. It's up to you
| to inject the writer's feelings as either "this code
| sucks, here's how you do it" or "congratulations on
| making something cool, here are a few suggestions".
|
| My experience is that life is much better if you take the
| latter approach. Default to empathy.
|
| Consider listening to "This is Water" from David From
| Wallace.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC7xzavzEKY
| jnsie wrote:
| Let's agree to disagree. I most certainly didn't take
| offense. I just disagreed (and continue to disagree) with
| the (your) comment that I responded to. I'm sure the
| parent of the 7 year old in question was aware of the
| shortcomings of the code. The fact that a (presumed)
| grown-up read the post/thread and their reaction was to
| provide a code review is odd to me and more than a little
| hackernews-ish which the poster you responded to poked
| fun at and which you seemed to take exception to.
| KwanEsq wrote:
| Without n-gate around anymore there's literally no one who
| can
| _def wrote:
| And still with all of that it completely serves its purpose
| dchest wrote:
| The dog page should be banned in the EU because it doesn't
| disclose that the picture has been digitally altered,
| promoting impossible beauty standards for pets.
| gravpuse wrote:
| The concept of "Connection Before Correction" emphasizes
| creating a positive relationship and safe learning environment
| before addressing mistakes.
| dchest wrote:
| Connection and Correction - pair programming
|
| Connection before Correction - code review
| KronisLV wrote:
| > The concept of "Connection Before Correction"
|
| Oh hey, I learnt a new thing today!
|
| It always felt apt to offer a few words of praise for the
| things that are good, or to establish common ground in code
| review before offering constructive critique.
|
| Wouldn't call it a must, but makes putting one's own ego
| aside when receiving critique that much easier and lets me
| focus on improvement, I try to do that for others as well
| now!
| fintler wrote:
| > The dog is squeezed!
|
| We talked about that, and she thought it looked better that
| way.
| dchest wrote:
| I agree.
| piperswe wrote:
| > No need for / in HTML
|
| I personally prefer having the /> even though it's not
| necessary, so that I can tell at-a-glance whether a tag is
| self-closing or not. It doesn't hurt, does it?
|
| (plus I'm just used to it because the book I learned HTML from
| was confident that XHTML was the future)
| dchest wrote:
| I strongly believe that the harm we experienced from XHTML
| should not be passed down to future generations.
| Sander_Marechal wrote:
| You didn't love the strict and unhelpful generic XML
| exception you got when you accidentally forgot to close a
| tag?
| tempfile wrote:
| I thought the whole point of XML tags coming in named
| pairs was so you could be helpfully told which tag wasn't
| closed?
| dchest wrote:
| XHTML was a move by Big CMS to make edit-and-FTP error
| prone. Before that you rarely had to care whether the tag
| was closed.
| tempfile wrote:
| Is this a joke? I genuinely can't tell.
| throwaway3306a wrote:
| Don't blame bad tools on the language.
| ndriscoll wrote:
| I've always been completely baffled by the rejection of
| xhtml. It gave a way to extend html with new elements and a
| simple, powerful client side templating language with xslt.
| The "reason" for which I remember it being rejected was
| that allegedly web devs couldn't wrap their heads around
| closing tags and explicit attribute values, which seems
| crazy to me. Then a few years later typescript took off
| (which is way more complicated) and react gave a pretend
| way to write xml except now you need a compiler/build
| pipeline, and everyone loved it.
|
| xhtml still works in modern browsers btw. It's still
| probably the easiest way to do page templates. XSLT shows
| its age without the ability to modify the page after load
| (unless you run it via javascript), but we could've just
| added that and it'd be almost perfect.
| chrismorgan wrote:
| I reckon it _does_ hurt, beyond the negligible cost of the
| extra transferred and parsed bytes: it teaches something
| that's simply incorrect, and _doesn't_ do what people often
| think it does.
|
| 1 The trailing slash doesn't make a tag self-closing. _All_
| it does is get ignored, emitting a parse error (which in
| common compiler terms is just a warning) if you use it on a
| non-void tag.
|
| You can't use <div/>. You can't use <custom-tag/>. The _only_
| tags you're allowed to use the trailing slash on are the
| defined void tags like <img> and <br>.
|
| It's not "not necessary", it's "completely useless, by
| definition".
|
| I've _seen_ people presume they can close tags this way. JSX
| probably helps cause this, because you _can_ there. But
| because self-closing tags aren't a thing in HTML syntax, I
| think it's harmful to use the spelling at all in HTML syntax.
|
| 2 I wouldn't mind so much if people used it consistently, and
| I wouldn't mind at all if it was being used to support both
| HTML and XML syntax, but if you see sites that use trailing
| slashes on void tags in their head, practically every time
| there will be at least one tag that _isn't_ using it:
| <link ... /> <meta ... /> <link ...> <link
| ... />
|
| 3 I also dislike it because it's fairly common for syntax
| highlighters or other casual parsers to get it wrong. Most
| commonly, I've seen tools misinterpret an unquoted last
| attribute, treating <a href=/example/> as <a href="/example"
| /> rather than <a href="/example/"> before. (Same with the
| likes of <img src=/example/>, but anchor hrefs are more
| commonly going to look like that.)
| thehesiod wrote:
| IIRC, that's not necessarily true, some parsers "upgrade"
| html to xhtml and then process the xhtml since its more
| regular. html in general is a mess due to backwards
| compatibility requirements so trying to follow these kind
| of definitions imo is kinda pointless. you can optimize for
| size if you want but the decrease from these kind of
| optimizations with modern speeds is rather minimal
| chrismorgan wrote:
| > _some parsers "upgrade" html to xhtml and then process
| the xhtml since its more regular._
|
| I have never heard of anything even vaguely matching your
| description, and it would be _wildly_ wrong. HTML parsing
| is exhaustively defined, and the only way of correctly
| parsing HTML is to use the defined HTML parser.
| nick__m wrote:
| the dog is squeezed!
|
| Her page, her squeezed dog !
| j45 wrote:
| Is this code review indicating a 7 year old will be put on a
| PIP?
|
| While most of th 7 year olds contemporaries are busy consuming
| content instead of creating it like this?
| verbalstoner wrote:
| You are either autistic or just plain retarded.
| nathell wrote:
| <body background="animals.jpg"> <center>
|
| Exactly as I would do it if I were a 7yo. Speak what you will
| about the virtues of CSS and semantic markup, these things get in
| the way of having fun. And can be learned later.
| isoprophlex wrote:
| Totally agree with you. Not a front end dev myself, and I have
| multiple variations of "how do i center a div" in my search
| history, haha. With varying degrees of angry expletives added
| to the query.
| cronin101 wrote:
| Kids these days don't know how easy they have it with
| flexbox!
| WorldMaker wrote:
| Who needs Flexbox's inscrutable 1-dimension language when
| you can use ASCII diagrams in CSS Grid for clever 2D things
| easily? CSS Grid Kids are truly spoiled.
| jchw wrote:
| Flexbox, grid. You're all forgetting the best way to
| build layouts: ol' reliable, <table>.
| dpwm wrote:
| As used on HN. It just works, even today.
| jchw wrote:
| Although there is some degree of silliness to suggesting
| table layouts in 2024, it frankly really _is_ not that
| bad. To me personally, the era of float: left and
| clearfix and 10 layers of wrapper divs was significantly
| more of a mess. "Oh look, I got my layout working on
| IE6! Oops, it's now broken in Opera..." Anyone remember
| using invalid CSS to write browser-dependent styles? How
| about using Microsoft's proprietary DirectX filters to
| make PNG transparency work? In the era of taking crummy
| PSDs full of graphics and chopping them up into images
| for an HTML template, these were the tools of the trade.
|
| Not that tables were perfectly standardized or anything,
| because I do remember Netscape and IE not totally
| agreeing on how to handle column widths, but they sure
| were, well, _simpler_.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| It is _almost_ a shame modern browsers no longer support
| all the fun layout patterns of ol ' FRAMESET. There was a
| layout tool to cut your teeth on (possibly literally the
| way it was made out of browser chrome).
| jchw wrote:
| Not that I necessarily advocate for frameset insanity,
| but you know what? That _is_ a shame. My controversial
| (?) opinion is that browsers should literally _never_
| break _anything_ that was once a part of the web platform
| unless there 's simply no other choice. If the size of it
| is getting too big... first, stop adding more shit. (And
| then maybe, implement some old features in terms of some
| newer ones. Not really "web platform" but I am a huge
| proponent of what Ruffle is doing for the web.)
| vundercind wrote:
| I'll go a step farther: improved frames and datasource-
| aware tables and lists with a few very basic features
| found in almost any other UI kit out of the box would
| have given us 99% of the actually-beneficial stuff AJAX
| did, but better.
|
| The Web is a ton worse because we decided to build apps
| on it but never built the tools to do it right, even
| though the building blocks were _right there_.
| jchw wrote:
| IMO the biggest problem with the way frames works is that
| it doesn't work well with navigation. I think
| unfortunately that this is just a design flaw with frames
| and it needed breaking changes to mitigate.
|
| I think I would've rather seen it go that direction, but
| it's hard to say. Without a crystal ball, we can't really
| compare the outcomes, and it's hard to imagine what
| would've happened in this hypothetical. I mean, I don't
| think in 2004 I would've been able to guess (or stomach)
| what the web was going to become 20 years down the road.
| AgentME wrote:
| Framesets still work as far as I know, they're just no
| longer recommended for a few reasons. Browsers already
| try very hard to never ever break anything, at least not
| anything that's been commonly supported for years or has
| made it into a standard. The main places browsers have
| broken compatibility with old content are related to
| plugins like Flash and Silverlight, which were always
| controlled by a single vendor instead of being open
| standards.
| freedomben wrote:
| I know you're not entirely serious, but we really had it
| good and largely figured out with tables. It's probably
| because using tables for layouts was my native language,
| but I still sometimes have to mentally translate divs into
| a table in my mind to picture what is happening, and when
| default types are change (like block to inline, etc) it
| sometimes breaks my brain and I have to fallback to
| experimentation to get what I want. Slight disclaimer
| though: I'm a backend/infra guy so don't do frontend very
| often.
| Archelaos wrote:
| > I still sometimes have to mentally translate divs into
| a table in my mind to picture what is happening
|
| I still use tables (seriously).
| recursive wrote:
| Tables aren't even deprecated. IMO you're better off
| keeping the tables than transforming it into <div> soup.
| 20 years ago you'd hear it shouted from the rooftops:
| "Tables for layout are not semantic!". Guess what? <div>s
| are never semantic. Just use tables if it suits you.
| pvorb wrote:
| If you want to remove the semantics of table elements,
| you could set a role="presentation" attribute on all
| table-related tags. I'm wondering what HTML semantics
| enthusiasts will say about this. ;-)
| jraph wrote:
| You almost got me. After all why not? So I had to go read
| stuff, and think more about it than I would have. So
| thanks for this.
|
| So: <table role="presentation"> is probably mostly fine,
| but not great, and not good practice.
|
| The ARIA spec [1] says:
|
| > 2. Notes on ARIA Use in HTML
|
| > 2.1 First Rule of ARIA Use
|
| > If you can use a native HTML element [HTML51] or
| attribute with the semantics and behavior you require
| already built in, instead of re-purposing an element and
| adding an ARIA role, state or property to make it
| accessible, then do so.
|
| That's because simpler is easily more accessible. ARIA is
| last resort, when all else failed. ARIA is complex and
| not always well implemented, or implemented at all, and
| when it is implemented, interpretations can differ. Your
| content will be more accessible to more users / for more
| browsers if it doesn't rely on ARIA to be accessible. And
| more often than not, you can do more harm than good by
| using aria attributes, because it's easy to misuse them,
| which is worse than not using them at all. Now, ARIA is
| still very useful and should be used when it improves
| things over what HTML/CSS supports by itself, but table-
| based layouts have readily available HTML/CSS solutions.
|
| My opinion is that there's no good reason today to use
| tables for presentation. One of the reasons is always the
| same: separation of concerns. Structure your content, in
| the simplest possible way, and then style it. Structured
| content, with a structure that's as simple as possible,
| is more easily accessible. Add divs if really necessary
| for styling (which don't really change the structure,
| since they don't have meaning - keeping in mind that they
| are a compromise).
|
| It's funny how everyone seem convinced by the principle
| of separation of concerns, except for HTML/CSS/JS.
|
| You could use divs with display:table(-row|-cell) for the
| same result. Although CSS flex or CSS grid would let you
| achieve the same thing with a simpler structure and will
| allow you to have a responsive design. Fat tables with
| side menus are unwieldy on small screens and your
| <table><tr><td>-based structure will make it more
| difficult to offer a usable design to them.
|
| Table layout are also not great on text / terminal-based
| browsers. Letting the content flow from top to bottom
| will be way better. You have this for free if you don't
| use tables, because usually terminal browsers don't
| understand CSS.
|
| I would then reverse the question: why use tables when
| you can use display:table, CSS Flexbox or CSS Grid? What
| are the benefits? Especially when they are simpler as
| soon as you learned once how to do your favorite layout
| using these "new" things. I won't be convinced by any
| answer that sounds like "I don't really want to learn
| this stuff" because if we are trying to answer "What is
| the most correct way to do this", we should seek to use
| the better version, not the one we are familiar with.
|
| It seems to me "Why not use <table role=presentation>?"
| is a bit like "Why not use this carafe labeled 'this is a
| glass' as a glass?". Sure, why not, it will work, but if
| you have a glass now, even if you need to pour the water
| into the glass before you can drink it, isn't it better?
| (of course, maybe not the best analogy, I'm not good at
| analogies, but I hope it can help understand my
| perspective on <table role=presentation>).
|
| I also believe role="presentation" or role="none" is a
| code smell. It has legitimate uses (I guess), but the use
| better be clearly justified.
|
| [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/using-aria/
| recursive wrote:
| > why use tables when you can use display:table, CSS
| Flexbox or CSS Grid?
|
| The benefit would be that the author can understand how
| to use it better.
| peebeebee wrote:
| Counterpoint: no semantics is better than wrong
| semantics. If a screenreader thinks your layout is a
| (data)table, it makes your visually impaired users sad.
| Terretta wrote:
| > _Tables aren 't even deprecated. IMO you're better off
| keeping the tables than transforming it into <div> soup._
|
| I wonder if any notable sites still use tables even for
| complicated things such as, say, nested comment threads?
| recursive wrote:
| > notable
|
| Good one
| holoduke wrote:
| Table are used when tables are needed. Excel like
| overviews. No reason to not use tables. For site layouts
| (multiple columns etc) you would better use divs in a
| flexbox or something.
| pseudocomposer wrote:
| So _that's_ why some devs can somehow still manage to make
| flexbox layouts difficult :D
| vundercind wrote:
| If nobody's gonna see it to complain that I'm "doing it
| wrong" I'll still just throw a center tag in from time to
| time.
|
| Look, it works and lets me move on to stuff that matters.
| fintler wrote:
| I was really happy this still works. It's how I learned.
| squidbeak wrote:
| On the contrary, CSS is where the fun starts.
| nevertoolate wrote:
| Funny how?
| squidbeak wrote:
| Fun as in being a creative pleasure to use.
| gjvc wrote:
| funny != fun
| digging wrote:
| I remember getting confused/disgusted looks at my first
| front-end job when I said I loved CSS and would be happy to
| work on styling...
|
| Later I learned that having 3 or more different ways to get
| an identical result is... time-consuming, at best. When they
| all _might_ work slightly differently depending on several
| layers of context (or just not work), you realize CSS is ripe
| for massive pain points to spring up, and they can happen
| unexpectedly. I understood why everyone else hated CSS -
| under time pressure, it 's just _not worth_ dealing with
| 99.9% of the complexities for immeasurably small + abstract
| returns.
|
| Eventually, I determined that I both love and despise CSS in
| different aspects. It's complex enough to hold both
| attitudes. And I'm very, very satisfied that Tailwind came
| along and (nearly) perfected what Bootstrap et al were
| figuring out before it.
| im3w1l wrote:
| The issue with this is that it lacks the semantic - styling
| separation of proper modern HTML with CSS.
|
| Like compare that mess to the elegant semantic structure of a
| state of the art webpage like google.com <div
| class="gb_Ld"><div class="gb_Xc"><div class="gb_k gb_Fd gb_z"
| data-ogsr-fb="true" data-ogsr-alt="" id="gbwa"><div
| class="gb_f">
| kennyadam wrote:
| Beautiful in it's simplicity. I also admire how much
| JavaScript modern websites can stuff down my throat without
| the mereist whiff of necessity.
| recursive wrote:
| I imagine those class names are the vocalizations of some
| hapless user agent.
|
| > Open up wide! Here comes some 'content'! Quit complaining,
| you can handle it!
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| Back in the day it would have been animals.bmp, drawn on Paint
| mmcgaha wrote:
| I wish it played a midi when I opened the page.
| skgough wrote:
| I agree with you, but for shits and giggles, to modify this to
| be evangelist compliant, you could write this instead:
| <body style="background: url('animals.jpg')"> <div
| style="text-align: center">
|
| Which isn't much more complicated, and makes it clearer what's
| going on. I wonder if there is a transpiler like Elm that could
| take a single file written in a simplified language and gave
| you an HTML5 compliant webpage? You could argue that all the
| XML-but-not-actually-XML crap in HTML (angle brackets, closing
| tags, escaping special characters with HTML entities...) is
| also an impediment to beginners.
| Carrok wrote:
| > Which isn't much more complicated, and makes it clearer
| what's going on.
|
| Hard disagree on both points.
| temac wrote:
| What is the value of writing all of that, compared to the
| simpler approach? What will you want next in your quest of
| purity? Forbidding inline styles in the name of security,
| maybe?
|
| Disclaimer: I'm not found of web techs...
| tannhaeuser wrote:
| Are you serious? Embedding a language (CSS) into the string
| literals of another one (HTML) is of course much more
| complicated, and needlessly so.
|
| Also, there's nothing XML-but-not-actually about HTML. Both
| HTML and XML are derived from SGML.
| skgough wrote:
| The kid doesn't have to know that's it's CSS, and
| `style="background: url('animals.jpg')"` is more clear than
| just `background` because it explicitly states that this a
| networked resource that is being retrieved with the url()
| function. If you tried to set the `background` attribute to
| "blue" it wouldn't do anything, because you have to use the
| `bgcolor` attribute to color the background of the page.
| But the `background` property in CSS is a shorthand, so you
| can set it to a named X11 color, or a gradient, or an image
| file, and these all work.
|
| The `<center>` element spans the width of it's container,
| is only as tall as it's content, and only centers the
| content contained inside it horizontally, but this isn't
| immediately obvious just from looking at the element's
| name. Using `text-align: center` instead is a much more
| obvious way to describe what the `<center>` element is
| actually doing.
|
| Yes, this is more complicated, but it is more obvious,
| which, I think, is more useful when someone is learning a
| complex topic.
| hanniabu wrote:
| TIL there's a center tag and background can be an inline
| property
| purple-leafy wrote:
| <3
| junon wrote:
| Heck yeah this is exactly how I started when I was 6. HTML books
| at the library and websites exactly like this.
|
| Love this OP, thank you for sharing.
| TonyTrapp wrote:
| Love the 90s look. Well done!
| sleepyhead wrote:
| More correct html than a senior react dev.
| fifteen1506 wrote:
| Is it her true name?
|
| I've been trying to get mine to use an alias but so far is one
| per service and loses a bit of magic.
| fintler wrote:
| It is! I got lucky with the domain.
| andreime wrote:
| Not very different than what I did when I started, with XHTML et
| al. She did a great job.
| icoder wrote:
| > computers are a very important form of technology. Without it
| no websites, no Roblox studio, and no nothin.
|
| Oh yes indeed.
| thepancake wrote:
| I actually learned something about cats from her page. Thanks!
| Michvalwin wrote:
| She centered the page like a pro. Also, It gave me nostalgia
| watching how fast the page loads.
| Vt71fcAqt7 wrote:
| This is actually better than 90% of websites today: loads fast,
| no nav bars, no position: sticky, no cookie popups, no ads. The
| content is informative and straight to the point. A website
| worthy to be the inverse of the much ignored related guideline:
|
| >Please don't complain about tangential annoyances--e.g. article
| or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage.
| They're too common to be interesting.
| duiker101 wrote:
| Fantastic! Only comment I could possibly have is that the cats
| page needs more pics of cats.
| benterix wrote:
| > Without computers used have to use tablets. Tablets aren't very
| useful.
|
| That's the spirit!
| hunter2_ wrote:
| Until you get to the tablet page, at which point it's useful
| indeed!
| autoexec wrote:
| I feel bad for all the kids whose parents think giving them a
| tablet or smart phone is the same as having a real computer.
| They're depriving their children of something really magical by
| leaving them with devices built primarily for personal data
| collection and content consumption instead of a tool for
| creation.
| yashg wrote:
| This is so cool. The site loads fast, is responsive and will work
| on all browsers.
|
| My very first website on Geocities looked pretty much like this.
|
| Joy of creation.
|
| Good job.
| numerative wrote:
| >Tablets aren't very useful. Well to do stuff Computers can
| anyway.
| sph wrote:
| Tell her she chose a fantastic background image :) Also cheetahs
| are beautiful felines and instead of roaring, they chirp like
| birds
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6Qh3VTmtxU
| royal_ts wrote:
| it's so cute, I love everything about it
| eska wrote:
| Recently I see more and more articles and social media posts
| surprised about the current youth's lack of a mental model how
| computers actually work. I assume this is due to smartphones and
| tablets not letting them experiment. Laptop hardware is also
| usually not made to tinker with.
|
| OP, I think you're doing your daughter a great service with
| building an attitude that computers are just machines that can be
| learned about and understood. I started with HTML at 10 years
| old, and it gave me a lasting passion about the internet and
| connecting the world, leading to peace among distant people.
| Nowadays as an adult I'm unfortunately disillusioned due to
| negative aspects of social media, dating apps, and fake news, but
| alas..
|
| Maybe in the future you can show her light javascript, the WAMP
| stack to make a guestbook (beware of spam nowadays), a cat image
| gallery with upload function (and a password). The latter
| features requiring something like PHP or perhaps python nowadays,
| and some database (I used mysql 25 years ago, perhaps sqlite or
| postgres nowadays?)
| fx1994 wrote:
| Let her play like other kids.
| denysvitali wrote:
| The page is not responsive... /s
|
| Jokes aside, impressive for a 7 years old!
| Maksadbek wrote:
| Fantastic! Are you going to teach her JavaScript as well ?
| Gnarl wrote:
| This is absolutely adorable :) Well done Naya!
| mattront wrote:
| Great job Naya :)
|
| For other parents here, if your kids are interested in learning
| HTML and CSS with the help of cute aliens, my son (who was 11 at
| the time) and I built HTML Planet for Kids [0]. The course uses a
| visual editor for manipulating HTML, so that there is less typing
| and frustrating syntax mistakes, while still exposing the code
| directly without any added abstractions.
|
| [0] https://htmlplanetforkids.com/
| Anaphylaxis wrote:
| It's nice that you advertise your business here but for a
| passionate child this is boring. Double-clicking a box and
| changing text teaches them nothing, instead of paying $9/mo I
| can pay $0/mo and have them utilize free courses, YouTube, and
| teach them how to read documentation like MDN which will
| benefit them way more than simply teaching them how to use your
| website.
| royal_ts wrote:
| Cute page but what's the cloudflare analytics for
| otar wrote:
| Awesome! I love seeing kids play around with code. Curiosity is
| very important at any age.
|
| That's how I started too. Back in the days of Internet Explorer,
| I used to click View -> Source and mess around with the HTML in
| Notepad. I'd change the content, blocks, colors...
|
| About 25 years later, I'm still coding, but right now I'm
| deploying the data transformation pipeline (T in the ELT) on
| production server to calculate business KPIs.
| devoutsalsa wrote:
| Now tell her to deploy it on Kubernetes.
| rokisen157 wrote:
| 7 years old? Don't force kids If you need your kid to be kid.
| Hand coding HTML is just trash than collecting leaves & beautify
| the kindergarden book.
|
| I've no memory for last 10+ years other than computer and
| programming. All I've pretty beautiful memory from childhood.
| jbjbjbjb wrote:
| Maybe the kid likes to learn about computers and there's enough
| time to do both.
| j45 wrote:
| HTML is fine to lean to code by hand.
|
| Tags can provide clear starts and ends for beginners, as well
| as concepts of nesting.
|
| Folks who learned to code HTML using a wysiwyg html editor may
| be able to describe how it helped them learn.
| yreg wrote:
| I have great memories of using computers as a little child,
| including tinkering with html and beginner css. I would never
| trade them for collecting leaves.
|
| Your feelings are not universal.
| Zambyte wrote:
| > I've no memory for last 10+ years other than computer and
| programming.
|
| If you are saying this in a negative light, you should _really_
| work on changing that. Try finding things local to you that you
| can participate in.
| episteme wrote:
| What makes you think they were forced? Or doesn't spend the
| rest of their time collecting leaves? You know nothing of this
| family.
| 11235813213455 wrote:
| Some issues she can improve on: - H1 content is
| too long, it should be less than 60 characters, use <p> for the
| rest of secondary content - There should be only exactly
| 1 H1 per page
| jader201 wrote:
| I hope the "/s" was implied.
|
| I thought about making a similar post, in the true spirit of a
| "Show HN", but would have included the "/s".
| commandlinefan wrote:
| Same here, but I figured nobody would get the joke. From his
| downvote count, it looks like I was right.
| 11235813213455 wrote:
| Even if not, why would it be so bad to give advices to a
| young girl?
| commandlinefan wrote:
| Apparently so.
| 11235813213455 wrote:
| Obviously, but it still hurts me to see multiple H1 in a page
| kaffeeringe wrote:
| Reminds me of my first website, back in 1994/95. I used yellow
| text on bright blue backgroud and wrote about music I liked. Only
| I was 10 years older.
| mg wrote:
| Awesome!
|
| That's pretty much how I make websites up to this day.
|
| Later, if it grows, I usually add a stylesheet file to separate
| content and layout.
|
| Then I sometimes add some JavaScript.
|
| Then I sometimes add some backend storage and processing.
|
| Then I need a certificate for https.
|
| Then if it gets a lot of traffic, I put a CDN in front of it.
|
| And that's it.
| nmg wrote:
| > Sometimes they can sleep up to like 18 or 12 hours a day. That
| is a lot of sleeping for a cat.
|
| Can we just put the author of these pages in charge of the whole
| Internet please?
| hassanr99 wrote:
| wow, Congrats her to dev community.
| cue_the_strings wrote:
| Cool! I made my first HTML website in 2001, when I was 10. The
| ISP allowed you FTP some HTML and image files into a folder, and
| you got a little website.
|
| Figuring out HTML was not too hard for me as a kid. Things
| enclosing other things is not a hard to grasp concept. I didn't
| use CSS and back then you had <center> and stuff; nowadays it's
| frowned upon as mixing up semantics and presentation, but back
| then it made sense to me.
|
| But doing any sort of programming (like at least writing batch
| files that had ifs and loops) was way harder and it took me
| several years to figure out.
| matsemann wrote:
| Surprisingly similar to our own web page made ~20 years ago as
| kids. Repeating and animated background, some theme pages with a
| few words about some hobby or things we liked, and then shit
| loads of marquee tags, heh.
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20180330033122/http://moj24.trip...
| tintedfireglass wrote:
| Oh my god I did almost the same thing when I was 9, I think I
| lost the website though. I took excerpts from an encyclopedia on
| animals and made small blog style pages very similar to this . It
| was so fun!
| aitchnyu wrote:
| I was 10 or 11 and I was typing a pocket dictionary to become
| first online dictionary. Guess I got as far as "abdicate". If I
| had succeeded, I would have used a free website generator which
| we call static hosts today.
| Lockal wrote:
| <!-- Cloudflare Pages Analytics --><script defer
| src='https://static.cloudflareinsights.com/beacon.min.js' data-
| cf-beacon='{"token":
| "cf82897298e84b9eb36d9490803c2538"}'></script>
|
| Ah, kids these days!
| lopis wrote:
| When I was a child all we had was funky site counters. Kids
| these days! I wonder if she deployed this using kubernetes or
| what.
| otherme123 wrote:
| Cloudflare automatically insert that snippet in your proxied
| pages. I don't know if you can opt out, but certainly is not an
| opt-in feature AFAIK.
| tremarley wrote:
| I was 7 years old when I made my first website too.
|
| Back then, i remember my dad was having trouble using
| Dreamweaver. I went to try and help him, and found that using
| Dreamweaver was more fun to me than playing with my XBOX or PS1
| nunez wrote:
| This is really cool! Well done!
| jmull wrote:
| > computers are a very important form of technology. Without it
| no websites, no Roblox studio, and no nothin. Without computers
| used have to use tablets. Tablets aren't very useful. Well to do
| stuff Computers can anyway.
|
| Come on, Apple. A seven year-old gets it, why can't you? Let
| iPads run MacOS.
| j45 wrote:
| This is the way.
| dannypovolotski wrote:
| The cat page is my favorite
| g105b wrote:
| Cute. I'd like to see a pony page please.
| lnauta wrote:
| This is adorable and made me feel good! I learned something about
| cats too. Thank you for sharing.
| wyclif wrote:
| As the father of a six year-old girl, the cheetahs page made
| total sense to me. My daughter likes to play "Name this animal"
| with me, where she describes the animal and I have to guess
| what it is. Why are six and seven year-old girls obsessed with
| cheetahs?, I ask myself. My guess is that it's because they are
| the fastest animals.
| sideshowb wrote:
| Yet despite their ferocity still cute, they purr rather than
| roar!
| ClawsOnPaws wrote:
| I had the opportunity to pet a cheetah last year, and I
| think that is one of those things that will stay with me
| for the rest of my life even if I never get another chance.
| The cheek rubs, the purrs, just like my cats would do. I
| haven't been able to stop thinking about it. Yes, I went
| straight to the cheetah page too. They're awesome! I never
| much thought about them until that day, but now it's a
| fascination.
| systemtest wrote:
| I would like to subscribe for more cat facts.
| motohagiography wrote:
| there aren't many tasks adults can do that cannot be taught to
| children. what are examples of ones that can't?
| volkadav wrote:
| <3
|
| it's good to see a little person having fun with all this
| technocrap that us grognards have gotten so bitter about over the
| years/decades. :) i hope she continues to have a blast!
|
| (from the dedication page in SICP:)
|
| "I think that it's extraordinarily important that we in computer
| science keep fun in computing. When it started out, it was an
| awful lot of fun. Of course, the paying customers got shafted
| every now and then, and after a while we began to take their
| complaints seriously. We began to feel as if we really were
| responsible for the successful, error-free perfect use of these
| machines. I don't think we are. I think we're responsible for
| stretching them, setting them off in new directions, and keeping
| fun in the house. I hope the field of computer science never
| loses its sense of fun. Above all, I hope we don't become
| missionaries. Don't feel as if you're Bible salesmen. The world
| has too many of those already. What you know about computing
| other people will learn. Don't feel as if the key to successful
| computing is only in your hands. What's in your hands, I think
| and hope, is intelligence: the ability to see the machine as more
| than when you were first led up to it, that you can make it
| more." ~Alan J. Perlis (April 1, 1922 - February 7, 1990)
| HaZeust wrote:
| Kind of reminds me of the quote from the Steve Jobs movie:
|
| "The most efficient animal on the planet is a condor. The most
| inefficient animals on the planet are humans. But a human with
| a bicycle becomes the most efficient animal. And the right
| computer -- a friendly, easy computer that isn't an eyesore but
| rather sits on your desk with the beauty of a tensor lamp --
| the right computer will be a bicycle for the mind. A beautiful
| object -- perfect geometry, perfect finish, something you want
| to look at and have in your home. Flawless. And then a personal
| computer becomes an interpersonal computer. And what if instead
| of it being in the right hands, it was in everyone's hands?"
| cjohnson318 wrote:
| Dude really hit it out of the park with the "bicycle for the
| mind".
| rpozarickij wrote:
| I haven't see the movie (only a few clips), but I enjoyed
| hearing this analogy from Steve Jobs himself in many of his
| interviews [0].
|
| Just checked the part [1] of the movie where Michael
| Fassbender talks about the bicycle of the mind. He is a very
| good actor but it's hard to match the energy and the electric
| focus of Steve Jobs.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmuP8gsgWb8
|
| [1] https://youtu.be/BZYZlzIMVw8?si=u8X_mc4BX62ypRZw&t=98
| ketzo wrote:
| I've never seen the full quote, and I really love that last
| sentence.
|
| Reminds me of Ratatouille: "Anyone can cook."
|
| We make software so that someone else can do something new
| with it that we ourselves never imagined.
|
| So important to remember that someone could be... anyone!
| HaZeust wrote:
| Yup! Not everyone can be a great artist, but a great artist
| CAN come from anywhere
| karolist wrote:
| Internet tells me that human is not the most inefficient, but
| pretty much down on the list. Sorry to be that guy, but to me
| a joke or quote needs to be true to impact :(
|
| https://ghijklmno.net/a-bicycle-for-the-mind/
| cm11 wrote:
| Funny, another commenter posted both videos, Steve Jobs
| saying it and Steve Jobs the film. Steve Jobs says what you
| say. Hollywood says it the other way. I suppose it also
| wouldn't be surprising if Jobs rehearsed this Hollywood-
| style for his interview.
| kilna wrote:
| This "bicycle for the mind" guy died way sooner because of
| woo-woo bullshit magical thinking. He was an overprivileged
| marketer who had a better than average sense of what people
| would like, combined a shameless capacity to crib others'
| notes. Like most venerated billionaires, his main genius was
| his capacity to exploit.
| endofreach wrote:
| While i do not share the opinion that jobs was such a
| genius at all, reducing him to be just a marketer seems
| very narrow-minded.
|
| Sometimes it's about bundling potential rather than
| exploitation. I have read many stories of the people who
| worked for jobs, not many of the "first ones" seem to tell
| stories of being exploited. But many seem to be proud of
| how much work they put into their work guided by a guy who
| seems to be there mostly for saying yey or ney. Which seems
| to be crucial.
|
| Think about all the dysfunctional organizations you have
| seen or worked with. In my experience, most of them were
| lacking clarity, responsibility, personal investment &
| decisions.
|
| The potential to end all wars, end hunger, free societies
| etc is there. I mean just on HN, the potential to transform
| the world by tomorrow is there. There is enough people with
| good will, enough people in key positions, enough people
| who are the best in their field, enough people who love to
| hack away as a side project, enough people who enjoy
| debating etc... here on HN.
|
| All that is missing is the right approach to get a few of
| these people together with the right goal and by tomorrow
| we could take out / stop a lot of evil. This person must be
| able to "market", to bundle potential. But this person must
| also be able to identify potential & make hard decisions &
| do the things others would call "insensitive". Otherwise
| the people would quickly lose interest or be lost in chaos.
|
| Focusing potential seems to be the most crucial part.
| Having a lot of potential but high entropy seems to be
| irrelevant in most cases.
|
| Anyway, had to type it out because i just realized that
| partially i am doing the same mistake with my startup. Too
| stuck fiddling on the tech while knowing that i should be
| focusing on bundling potential. Currently i am just
| contributing to a entropic potential, which serves no one.
| Bundling it might serve the right people, at the right time
| with the right people.
|
| Which infects my mind with the question i have been
| struggling with: is there any way someone like jobs could
| have been more than just a marketer in your eyes?
|
| I do feel like i am looking down upon people like jobs who
| seem to be happy with just talking and never trying to
| really do the things themselves. On the other hand having
| this opinion of potential entropy... what do you think?
|
| Edit: just wanted to add the after thought that people most
| likely call these people geniuses, whose way of achieving
| results they can't quite comprehend. And usually for people
| too attached from the problematic domain, the same geniuses
| could appear like idiots or sharlatans.
| jstanley wrote:
| We were promised bicycles for the mind, but what we got was
| public transport for the mind.
| bostik wrote:
| In true South Park style.
|
| Mr Garrison would be proud.
| briankelly wrote:
| We had locomotives before bicycles, too. I think the
| industry can still get there.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Well what we really ended up with is TV.
| HaZeust wrote:
| "Before I was shot, I always thought that I was more
| half-there than all-there - I always suspected that I was
| watching TV instead of living life. People sometimes say
| that the way things happen in movies is unreal, but
| actually it's the way things happen in life that's
| unreal. The movies make emotions look so strong and real,
| whereas when things really do happen to you, it's like
| watching television - you don't feel anything. Right when
| I was being shot and ever since, I knew that I was
| watching television. The channels switch, but it's all
| television." - Andy Warhol
|
| Life is a quote or song cue.
| sabhiram wrote:
| Muni style. People crapping all over it from time to time.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| Nice quote. Lost it now but I used to have a desktop wallpaper
| with the old Kraftwerk cover with "ITS MORE FUN TO COMPUTE". We
| need regular reminders. FWIW my little one is mastering the
| command line after a year of having to type to get things. Even
| if she turns out not into computers I won't grieve because if
| nothing else she learned to type, which is a useful skill
| itself.
| xenadu02 wrote:
| When some people were proposing Swift remove the ability to use
| Emoji in variable names this was my reply:
|
| > It's hella presumptuous to decide that I'm not allowed to
| express whimsy, frustration, humor, or any other emotions in my
| code. Or to tell an 8 year old using Playgrounds on the iPad
| that he/she can't name a variable :pig: purely because they
| find it funny. We don't have to squash the joy out of
| everything.
| vladxyz wrote:
| As soon as I realized I could have emoji in bash function
| names I did a thing[0] with it. It breaks shellcheck, annoys
| people who I try to convince to use it, but it makes me very
| happy.
|
| [0] https://code.ofvlad.xyz/v/lightning-runner
| dkarl wrote:
| I miss the fun in software development in the workplace.
| Something has changed. When I started 20+ years ago, people
| would get excited about something new they learned and rush to
| tell other people about it. Now everybody is grim, too busy
| grinding and "managing their visibility" to show any pleasure.
|
| If it was just me and my friends who were joyless now, I'd
| chalk it up to us getting old, but my coworkers who are the
| same age as I was 20 years ago are just as grim if not more so.
| They're at a point in their career where so much cool stuff is
| new to them, and they're completely dry and professional about
| it.
|
| For example, I was in a huddle with a coworker, and we needed
| something from a parquet file. My coworker said he might have
| time later to write a script to extract the information, and I
| was like, "No, check this out!" and I started up duckdb and had
| the answer in under a minute. My coworker's response was just a
| monotone, "I've never seen that before. It looks useful." Not
| "whoa, cool!" or even a simple "nice." It was almost like he
| felt worse for knowing it existed.
|
| It makes me look around at my coworkers and wonder if everybody
| could possibly be as miserable as they look and sound? And if
| so, why?
| brewdad wrote:
| Certainly not everyone, but a lot of the people who have
| entered the field in the past decade are chasing the money.
| The never had the passion for it but they were and are good
| at it, so here they are.
| ilrwbwrkhv wrote:
| The last remaining field is game dev. The pay is low and
| react kiddies cannot learn it in a week. I wish the pay was
| higher buy the passion remains there.
| altdataseller wrote:
| I would not assume they're miserable because I probably would
| have the same reaction if I was them.
|
| We have just been bombarded with so much technology and
| advancements in the past two decades that it really takes a
| lot to impress us. We've had ppl conputing, smartphones,
| electric cars, semi-autonomous driving, VR and ChatGPT. A
| tool that parses Parquet is very very low in the totem pole,
| compared to all the new tech everyone has been exposed to.
|
| Add that to the fact that we've also been overpromised new
| shiny things that turn out to he disappointments (Google
| Wave, metaverse, blockchain, a lot of AI products) and its
| not surprising most people aren't that impressed by lots of
| tech these days.
|
| In comparison, 25 years ago, just seeing a webpage load in
| less than a second led to a Wow moment
| globular-toast wrote:
| I hope we can keep it alive. The latest volume of Knuth is full
| of puzzles, which is wonderful. But then I see the other top
| thread on HN where people are whining that they aren't getting
| paid more than 99.9% of the population for sitting at a desk
| solving problems all day. Sometimes I think those people don't
| deserve to be doing this job.
| aldousd666 wrote:
| Good for the kid getting her hands dirty! I was learning C by the
| time I was 9, but if HTML and the public Internet had been around
| when I was that age, I may have went that way instead!
| vegancap wrote:
| Great website, and very informative! Hope she keeps it up!
| biosboiii wrote:
| Cloudflare Page Analytics Beacon without asking for my consent
| first.
|
| Hopefully she has a heavy piggybank for my incoming GDPR lawsuit
| /s
| antisthenes wrote:
| This looks like my first website that I made for the game
| Freelancer around 2003, which was essentially just a short
| description of the game and a bunch of screenshots I made during
| gameplay.
|
| It's nice that kids these days don't skip the basics.
|
| Please, please, don't ever tell her about Javascript.
| revjx wrote:
| Great job, and I didn't know cats had such a wide field of vision
| they could see behind them!
| hamiltont wrote:
| Anyone else wanting to see the original content of /unicorn? Cats
| are great and all, but we want unicorns!!
|
| <3 wonderful project. Brings back memories of excitedly writing
| HTML in my drawing notebook and daydreaming what the pages would
| look like
| bdcravens wrote:
| Great job!
|
| I was significantly older when I built my first website (19, in
| 1996) but I'm so glad I had a space to pretty easily put up basic
| HTML (Geocities, though there were similar options). No WYSIWYG,
| no build steps, just the basic text-only HTML which created a
| foundation to build on. It's unfortunate there aren't really good
| options for that for today's younger creators. (is there?)
| gtk40 wrote:
| I got started with Netscape Composer around this age, as you
| could easily switch between the HTML view and the WYSIWYG view
| and see what everything does. Seamonkey is a still maintained
| version of the old Netscape/Mozilla suite which has Composer.
|
| https://www.seamonkey-project.org/
| herrkanin wrote:
| I think I was 8 or 9 when I started building my first website as
| well, and it looked remarkably similar to this. :) I think the
| only difference really is that all guides used uppercase for html
| tags back then. Happy that went out of style.
| spdustin wrote:
| Way to go, Naya! You taught me something new about cats, and I'm
| probably older than your dad!
|
| Keep it up, you're doing great! :)
| computerfriend wrote:
| It's a very good website. Fast, simple UX, no JavaScript and
| focused on content.
| dudeinjapan wrote:
| Far more size efficient than anything my Frontend dev team
| writes. A Docker image to build a React app we have was 6GB.
| ("Its not our fault its NPM")
|
| And the content is informative too!
| ryandrake wrote:
| Easily beats the performance and accessibility of most of the
| "professionally developed" web, supported by entire teams.
|
| Naya needs to take over as VP of Engineering at Reddit. The
| site would actually improve using her approach.
| noisy_boy wrote:
| Wonder why for such a cute and clean website, uMatrix is showing
| cloudlflareinsights.com blocked? On the off chance that a 7 year
| old isn't interested in website traffic analytics, is it
| Cloudflare injecting their shit?
| seafoamteal wrote:
| Websites hosted on Cloudflare Pages include Cloudflare's own
| analytics iirc.
| benlivengood wrote:
| You can turn on MITM html injection of Cloudflare analytics
| for proxied sites.
|
| [0] https://developers.cloudflare.com/analytics/web-
| analytics/ge...
| coding123 wrote:
| This looks like the pages I made when I was 14-ish (45yo here) on
| a modem.
| iamleppert wrote:
| HTML is such a great abstraction and syntax. I wonder if the same
| 7 year old would be able to (or have the attention) to learn
| something like React? Probably not.
|
| Maybe we should be testing our interfaces and API's with 7 year
| olds from now on. If they can't or won't use it, its probably a
| good signal the design is wrong.
| dgb23 wrote:
| Beginners, especially younger ones, crave for guidance. But
| what they get is often loud marketing and cargo cult behavior.
| Now it seems to be even worse than when I was starting out. For
| example YT feeds get spammed with fearmongering and clickbait
| thumbnails. Apparently the attention of beginners is very
| valuable.
|
| Don't other crafts and professions have a stronger focus on
| understanding fundamentals?
|
| There's also much more useful information today than 20y ago
| though. Even though the signal to noise ratio seemingly gets
| smaller.
| freedomben wrote:
| Seriously, thank you so much for sharing this! It brought a much
| needed smile to my face this morning.
|
| Please tell your daughter that Ben really liked it and his
| favorite page was the dogs page. Question for her: Is that a
| picture of your dog? Does the dog have a name?
| domatic1 wrote:
| it's so refreshing not to get popups and cookie gdpr nice!
| rossdavidh wrote:
| Ok but did you make sure she used Kubernetes to deploy? :)
| Seriously her web page made me smile. Well done!
| joshmanders wrote:
| Hahaha this thread made me buy my daughter a domain and start
| to teach her too as she's been interested about what I do, and
| I was just getting things setup and yes, her site will be
| deployed via kubernetes because it's easy as apart of my infra
| already.
| jihadjihad wrote:
| _cmd + option + U_
|
| _..._
|
| _satisfied smile_
| tempodox wrote:
| Wow, that computer page comes with a serious color shock, but I
| guess kids like squeaky saturated colors :D
|
| Having fun is the most important thing, everything else follows
| that.
| pnemonic wrote:
| It works! More than can be said for many things I have made.
| Congrats, Naya!
| nimbleal wrote:
| I was talking to my parents the other day and surprised myself
| getting pretty chocked up remembering how my dad had shown me how
| to program an ascii animation on his 386, and how the wonder I
| felt at that in many ways led me to where I am today, so many
| years later. These things matter.
| tagami wrote:
| cats uri: /unicorn !
| cx0der wrote:
| and computer page is unicorncopy
| autoexec wrote:
| She's already learned to copy and build off of old code.
| That's how software gets made too.
| syngrog66 wrote:
| This should not be on HN, esp not front page.
| kstrauser wrote:
| We took a vote and decided it should be at the front.
| kstrauser wrote:
| You better believe I went straight for the cheetah page. No, I
| didn't know they're about 59 inches long! I learned something new
| today!
| otts_boris wrote:
| does she feel like dropping a frontend framework soon? modern
| webdev needs that sort of simplicity and focus on content.
| globular-toast wrote:
| I wish I still had my websites from when I was around 9 or 10.
| Alas they were stored on a Seagate Quantum Bigfoot (a 5.25" hard
| disk which we our family PC had for some reason), and it failed
| at some point.
| marvstazar wrote:
| I suggest you back up the HTML files as a record of her work when
| she was still a child, it will be a family treasure in the future
| :) You can even add it under your family's domain for
| safekeeping.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| I would love having a backup of my websites from ~1995.
|
| But maybe my memories are more exciting than the plain truth.
| erksa wrote:
| One of mine was caught by the wayback-machine, unfortunately
| before I ever got to add any of the menu or content
| functionality.
|
| http://web.archive.org/web/20040207221902/http://home.no.net.
| ..
|
| I started when I was 9, using Word as the editor. This was 5
| years later and I was 14 at the time), I both wish and am ok
| with the content no longer being there. At least I can go
| back humor myself on what I put in the side-navigation.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| I removed a lot of my older content from the Wayback
| Machine out of paranoia that future employers might find it
| and judge current me based off that. Pretty silly in
| hindsight.
|
| I do still have code archived by Planet Source Code though.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Do this before it gets the GeoCities treatment. I regret not
| making backups of things I made as a kid.
| troymc wrote:
| I learned quite a lot by viewing the source of this delightfully
| clean and spartan website.
|
| You don't need a DOCTYPE tag?
|
| You don't need a head tag?
|
| You don't need to declare the charset?
|
| The body tag has a "background" attribute?
|
| The HTML "center" tag still works?
| digging wrote:
| > You don't need a DOCTYPE tag? > You don't need a head tag? >
| You don't need to declare the charset?
|
| True, there are many things you don't _need_ for a page to be
| rendered in a typical browser, but that doesn 't make them
| useless. For example, DOCTYPE has exactly one purpose: tell the
| browser not to treat your page like it was designed for ancient
| versions of Netscape Navigator or Internet Explorer, with all
| the "quirks" of their pre-standardization rendering engines.
| throwitaway1123 wrote:
| Browsers are very lenient when it comes to HTML parsing. In
| fact, one of the reasons why HTML sanitization libraries like
| DOMPurify are so complex is because browsers will tolerate all
| sorts of twisted broken markup.
| TheHypnotist wrote:
| marquee still works too
| drdaeman wrote:
| It's a good opportunity to tell the history of SGML, HTML, XML
| and XHTML (and possibly more, like long-forgotten SXML), and
| explain how we (the collective humanity) fu^W badly messed up
| our technology by following the path of least resistance
| because some (a lot of) lazy as^W folks can't be bothered to
| follow a bunch of simple rules.
| AzzyHN wrote:
| "Cats are about 2 feet that means six times there height would be
| about 12 feet."
|
| hehehehehe
| tiffanyh wrote:
| This makes me so happy to see.
| erickhill wrote:
| I love this. Her little site really takes me back to the age of
| the internet I often miss.
|
| Back in the 90s, fresh out of art school I knew I needed to
| create a portfolio website of some sort. I went to a Borders
| Books and got a book about 4 or 5 inches think about HTML and how
| to craft a site using a tool built into Netscape Navigator. Over
| the course of a week or so I created a site very similar in
| function to the one in the OP. The main difference was the
| content.
|
| On my homepage I featured one of my drawings - a color pencil
| rendering of a very large/wide man in a jock strap looking at the
| viewer with a cunning smile. Yes, I was very mature. You had
| click on his belly to enter the site. This was where I learned to
| make an image map for the first time. When you clicked it he
| said, "Ooh, that tickles" and then you were in where the
| portfolio and navigation was presented.
|
| It was all HTML 4, no javascript, no cookies or forms - all very
| basic stuff.
|
| And that site got me my first real job in the design world (at an
| Adobe competitor called Micrografx, which later imploded). The
| rest is history! Thanks, Netscape.
| foobarian wrote:
| Since we're reminiscing...
|
| https://donkeyontheedge.com/mahir/
| xxr wrote:
| Bookmarked and going in the webring
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| [big smile]
| tutipop wrote:
| > Did you know that a dog puts its tail between its legs when
| it's sad.
|
| Can you spot the mistake?
|
| Neither can I. :-)
|
| Well done.
| callamdelaney wrote:
| No darkmode, literally unusable
| rchaud wrote:
| Now this is the real internet. Real people writing about things
| they're interested in, and not with the intention of turning it
| into a content farm. Of course at 7 years old we cannot expect a
| deep, fleshed out site like in the Geocities golden age, but I
| wish older kids and adults would continue this practice of
| authoring their own pages, and manually linking them together.
| CMSes are incredibly limiting by design, every template forces
| you into the default of "blog post writing mode" when HTML offers
| so much more flexibility.
| doctorwho42 wrote:
| Agreed. I think it more has become a race to the bottom in
| terms of content quality/sameness due to it really being a race
| to make some level of profit. The whole side Hussle culture,
| and hyper capitalization of all things is quite prevalent
| throughout society. So of course it influences us to view
| things with the lens of "is this worth my time if I can't make
| $x/hr doing it?"
|
| Also, as a nondeveloper i think there is room for a centralized
| hub for decentralized geocities-esc websites. Especially with
| the degradation of google search over the years, and the
| potential for a race to a deeper bottom than before due to AI
| generated content
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| See also: Dead internet theory
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Internet_theory
| neocron wrote:
| Whats wrong with using a CMS? A lot of them offer html content
| elements if you wish to express yourself more freely
|
| I don't miss the days of framesets and including the header,
| footer and menu over and over again
| rchaud wrote:
| A CMS makes the backend inaccessible. Want to add inline
| styles to a page? You can't. Want to embed a script for some
| quick interactivity? You can't. Of course you could attempt
| to locate the theme files and edit them, and edit the
| configuration files to enqueue scripts but at that point
| you're no longer having fun.
|
| The only thing you can do is write paragraphs in templated
| portions of the page. And that's who a CMS is for: people who
| are doing a job, and have no curiosity about looking under
| the hood and messing around.
| carabiner wrote:
| Kids should be outside playing with other kids.
| sibartlett wrote:
| This really takes me back to high school when everyone was
| writing websites like this... it was such a fun and pure time.
|
| Well done Naya!
| ryanisnan wrote:
| That's awesome!
|
| I love that such a simple page taught her how to make a
| completely functional website. Links, images, styling, and even
| an external script inclusion.
|
| Way to go Naya.
| lazlee wrote:
| 200+ comments about a 7 years old website = :-)
|
| Great job, Naya.
| madcow2011 wrote:
| Aww, <3 I love this. Keep up the great work, naya!!
| redleggedfrog wrote:
| Pretty darn good - looking forward to updates!
| HaZeust wrote:
| I often hear about the simplicity form factors of the internet in
| a bygone era, before my time, in the mid to late 90's. Now, from
| all the stories I've heard and the visuals I've seen, someone
| that's a third of my age now seems to be delivering that spirit
| of simplicity back :)
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| Cute!
| apeace wrote:
| This is the best thing I've seen on the internet in a long time.
| I'm going to bookmark it and check back for more informative
| content.
|
| I hope you tell Naya how much HN is loving it!
| explosion-s wrote:
| > no roblox studio, no nothin
| henvic wrote:
| Lovely! My first website was when I was 9 years old, and I used
| Netscape Composer to create it. My content was also centered in
| the screen :)
| dep_b wrote:
| I showed my kid (also around that age) how you could have fun
| with PRINT statements in C64 BASIC. He really enjoyed it and just
| the idea alone that you could control the computer instead of it
| being a black box.
|
| Perhaps a website could be fun too. But HTML 3.2 was much more
| friendly to beginners than everything that is out there now.
| tqwhite wrote:
| When I started using the web, this is what all pages looked like
| and tons and tons of people had personal ones just like this. It
| was so great. I used to love touring all the self expression.
|
| Not quite the first, but this is how mine looked in '98:
| https://web.archive.org/web/19981205195643/http://www.justki...
| throwitaway1123 wrote:
| One of my favorite aspects of the early web was the focus on
| customization. Your Myspace page was literally 'your space' and
| you were free to customize it with CSS as you pleased. There's
| a whole generation of developers and designers that started
| this way. You still see remnants of this philosophy in the
| contemporary web (e.g. moderators on Reddit can customize their
| subreddits), but that philosophy is nowhere near as ubiquitous
| as it was in the Geocities era.
| aloer wrote:
| Linked in there you have
| https://web.archive.org/web/19981206221926/http://www.msyste...
| which would be an amazing post on it's own.
|
| I had no idea people were already doing smart home things 26
| years ago!
| M4R5H4LL wrote:
| Wow, this is so cool! Your website is clear and easy to read.
| It's super easy to find everything, and it works really fast too.
| Awesome job, keep it up!
| l72 wrote:
| "computers are a very important form of technology. Without it no
| websites, no Roblox studio, and no nothin."
|
| Amen!
| andrewfurey2003 wrote:
| No pop ups No cookies Loads quickly. Only thing is the cloudflare
| pages analytics js. Frontend masterpiece lol
| nyanpasu64 wrote:
| :( Cloudflare automatically adds client-side JS analytics in
| pages it serves, unless you opt out:
| https://community.cloudflare.com/t/how-to-remove-analytics-t...
|
| Though uBlock Origin blocks the JS tracker already.
| err4nt wrote:
| Excellent website! Thanks for sharing, I learned something: the
| scientific name of a cheetah.
|
| Tell your daughter to keep making things that she likes to make!
| brabel wrote:
| > computers are a very important form of technology. Without it
| no websites, no Roblox studio, and no nothin.
|
| Don't you love the way children see things? So cute.
| clayg wrote:
| this line had me rolling. Love it!
| 1-more wrote:
| I'm sitting here paying all my bills from my house on such a
| machine. No nothin without it, indeed! No lies detected, Naya.
| nkg wrote:
| I notice it did not go down despite the HN hug of death !
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| I enjoyed the website.
|
| It just needed a marquee, blink, visit counter, guestbook, under
| construction disclaimer, some pixelated 256 color palette
| animated gif, and you would become one of us.
| taulien wrote:
| I love, how the path for the computer page is "/unicorncopy".
| Already thinks like a real pro!
| bitwize wrote:
| I love the Geocities-era Web 1.0 energy this has. Your daughter
| is avery creative person.
| jprd wrote:
| This is the way.
| fermigier wrote:
| I like it. This fondly, yet somewhat bitterly, recalls memories
| of my 25-year-old self creating his first HTML page in 1995, or
| even my 10-year-old self writing his first BASIC program in 1980.
| Pavilion2095 wrote:
| That's cool. I remember myself around that age. Before I learned
| about HTML, I used to draw web sites in MS Paint. And these both
| activities were so much fun.
| dxxvi wrote:
| If she has those concepts about html, she will learn more about
| html and then css very quickly with the help of AI.
| _wire_ wrote:
| Q: When's the best time to take your kids to dinner?
|
| A: When the graduate from medical school!
|
| --Dave Barry
| filmgirlcw wrote:
| I love this so much! Great work, Naya!
|
| Incidentally, I was creating an image for a slide for a talk a
| few weeks ago, showing off HTML circa 1996 and decided to do it
| in Windows 95 (which is what I used to write my first web pages
| when I was 12) and it was a lot harder than I thought it would be
| (mostly because the intricacies of what HTML versions were
| supported in the included browser versions of the Electron
| emulator I was using), to recall what tags did and didn't work.
|
| But I credit HTML with everything for me, as far as computer
| programming is concerned. Having a way to express markup in a
| text editor and see the results on a web page was life-changing.
|
| Love to see first graders doing this now!
| dev1ycan wrote:
| :3 so cute it made my day a bit happier thanks for posting
| karaterobot wrote:
| > Tablets aren't very useful. Well to do stuff Computers can
| anyway.
|
| Naya gets it!
| appel wrote:
| > computers are a very important form of technology. Without it
| no websites, no Roblox studio, and no nothin.
|
| Well put, Naya!
| oaktowner wrote:
| I love this so much. From 1992-1996 I was in a band in the SF Bay
| Area. I played the congas, but really I think they just let me do
| that because I also took on the band's webpage.
|
| It was dozens and dozens of pages of hand-coded HTML, updated
| nearly daily, with lots of easter eggs, etc. I had programmed a
| ton (I was a C/C++ developer at the time), but never in HTML. I
| learned everything by "viewing source" (at the time, most of the
| web was hand-written HTML).
|
| We hosted it at The Well, which even then had a little bit of
| cachet in the community.
|
| One of my great regrets was that we didn't keep a copy of the
| site -- and we "retired" and took down the site early enough that
| the Wayback Machine doesn't have a copy.
| nashashmi wrote:
| strange. still not indexed by google
| ms7892 wrote:
| Beautiful
| jdthedisciple wrote:
| what the hell since when do emojis work on this site??
| Devilboy1809 wrote:
| Moj syn w wieku 17 lat uzyl broni pneumatycznej do nagotowania
| urojonego przez siebie sasiada. Niewazne czy to z htm czy to jest
| bron wazne jest cel aspekt, afekt. To my decydujemy z jakiej
| broni i do kogo bedziemy celowac.
| kmoser wrote:
| What's her hourly rate?
| elijahbenizzy wrote:
| This is absolutely delightful. Perhaps my favorite line:
|
| "Without it no websites, no Roblox studio, and no nothin."
| mahmouds wrote:
| I love it. Keep it simple, Naya.
| rietta wrote:
| Love this! What a wonderful idea. I hope to encourage my
| daughters to do similarly as they learn about computers.
| kls0e wrote:
| excellent read. my favourite webpage now!
| th3w3bmast3r wrote:
| It's amazing to see a 7 year old putting it all together.
| Incredible beautiful!
| verbalstoner wrote:
| More soul than 98% of the current internet out there
| anon115 wrote:
| so fucking adorable
| wellsjohnston wrote:
| no Roblox Studio, no nothin.
| waldrews wrote:
| Great speed scores, reasonable SEO and best-practices scores, a
| few accessibility-related nitpicks but none critical. So, better
| than most professionals.
|
| https://pagespeed.web.dev/analysis/https-naya-lol/tkn3le4d53
| assimpleaspossi wrote:
| I wasn't going to go there but 9 errors, warnings and infos.
|
| https://validator.w3.org/nu/?doc=https://naya.lol/
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| Compared to most websites, that is superb!
| jdlyga wrote:
| I miss when this was the internet. Just thousands of little sites
| like this.
| felixnm wrote:
| Great job!
| sharker8 wrote:
| whats the dns setup?
| trekkie1024 wrote:
| It's curious that clicking on the links doesn't take you to a
| /page.html but rather just /page. Is that due to Cloudflare
| routing?
| 1oooqooq wrote:
| in this day age, getting past the captcha, false positive bot
| detection, proving a us based mobile number, etc etc... is harder
| to get kids started than the actual coding.
| notresidenter wrote:
| > Cats are about 2 feet that means six times there height would
| be about 12 feet. That would be a very terrifying cat
|
| Yes it would. There's something wonderful about the paths that a
| mind that hasn't been fully toned the way society wants it to
| explores.
|
| Well done.
| M4v3R wrote:
| Very well said. A 7yo is probably closest to their true
| ,,themselves" they will ever be.
| SheepSlapper wrote:
| Haha that bit cracked me up, all I could think was "yep, that'd
| be real scary!"
|
| This site rules :)
| tomger wrote:
| Good webpage
| mvkel wrote:
| I did this exact thing with my daughters (7 and 6)! They have a
| little guestbook with a password so friends and family can leave
| them messages.
|
| Beats an expiring gmail address
| jdthedisciple wrote:
| Very sweet, better than 99% of the internet already
| lacoolj wrote:
| I don't have kids so it's hard to tell if this is the equivalent
| of web dev prodigy or finger painting on the fridge :\
| kameit00 wrote:
| Loved the cat's page :)
| cynicalsecurity wrote:
| Your daughter also put spying trackers on the web-site?
| kreeWall wrote:
| OBSESSED! She did SO good!
|
| I taught young girls to code (founder of nonprofit Girls Code
| Lincoln, based in Nebraska USA) for the past few years - I love
| this! A few resources that you may be interested in sharing with
| her, age appropriate for her:
|
| Youtube series that we did where our students interviewed women
| in STEM -
| https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-32uv45Ln4VJGhVr_jr6...
|
| Podcast series where we talked about historical women in STEM + a
| current woman in STEM - we recommended people listen to this in
| the car when their kids are there.
| https://girlscodelincoln.buzzsprout.com/
|
| My email if you need anything at all, or would like further
| resources for your daughter. aakriti@TheNonprofiting.Org /
| info@GirlsCodeLincoln.org
|
| TED talk that I did about HOW to get your daughter interested in
| STEM: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guoLTuW8AX4&t=10s
| kreeWall wrote:
| Additionally, Pixar has a really good and robust coding lesson
| - called Pixar in a Box -
| https://www.khanacademy.org/computing/pixar Not sure if this is
| quite the right aged resource for her, but might be nice for
| you to have in your back pocket.
|
| Happy to help with pointing you to any resources you may need
| to keep her engaged!
| namuol wrote:
| > Cats are about 2 feet that means six times there height would
| be about 12 feet. That would be a very terrifying cat.
|
| Thanks for sharing! This is exactly the sort of smile I needed
| today.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Very nice. My daughter made something similar from HTML/CSS when
| she was 8 or 9, no tools, frameworks, just a text editor. (This
| was 15-16 years ago.) I think it's good not to be afraid to dive
| into the "bare metal" approach for kids who then gain a good
| understanding of the fundamentals even if later they end up using
| higher-level frameworks.
| efilife wrote:
| Great site! I wish I had started at her age
|
| > Cats are about 2 feet that means six times there height would
| be about 12 feet. That would be a very terrifying cat
|
| > That means that there warm blooded
|
| > there looking forward
|
| Hope you told her how to differentiate between _there_ and
| _their_ though :-)
| lt_snuffles wrote:
| got 93 on performance, 89 on best practices, 73 on SEO on
| lighthouse :)
| efilife wrote:
| Don't tell me she also included Cloudflare analytics on her site?
| h2o_lover wrote:
| Great job, Naya! From one lady programmer to another :)
| big_paps wrote:
| My son used clay to make me an ashtrayer..
| dankwizard wrote:
| at 7 years old i was running a 100000 user phpbb board fully
| customised
| subroutine wrote:
| I love this. Simple. Informative. Fun.
| newbalance wrote:
| Under 100KB :)
| byteknight wrote:
| Your daughter is awesome! I love this!!!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-18 23:02 UTC)