Was the Stack Exchange “Happy April Fools” page fitting with the 90s code? The Next CEO of...
Is it OK to decorate a log book cover?
How can a day be of 24 hours?
Was the Stack Exchange "Happy April Fools" page fitting with the 90s code?
How can I separate the number from the unit in argument?
Calculating discount not working
Are British MPs missing the point, with these 'Indicative Votes'?
How exploitable/balanced is this homebrew spell: Spell Permanency?
MT "will strike" & LXX "will watch carefully" (Gen 3:15)?
Strange use of "whether ... than ..." in official text
Is it "common practice in Fourier transform spectroscopy to multiply the measured interferogram by an apodizing function"? If so, why?
Why does sin(x) - sin(y) equal this?
Why do we say “un seul M” and not “une seule M” even though M is a “consonne”?
Can this transistor (2N2222) take 6 V on emitter-base? Am I reading the datasheet incorrectly?
How dangerous is XSS
Traveling with my 5 year old daughter (as the father) without the mother from Germany to Mexico
Does int main() need a declaration on C++?
Find the majority element, which appears more than half the time
Does Germany produce more waste than the US?
What happens if you break a law in another country outside of that country?
Shortening a title without changing its meaning
Early programmable calculators with RS-232
Could a dragon use its wings to swim?
Could you use a laser beam as a modulated carrier wave for radio signal?
Read/write a pipe-delimited file line by line with some simple text manipulation
Was the Stack Exchange “Happy April Fools” page fitting with the 90s code?
The Next CEO of Stack OverflowWhen did the <input> tag come about, and in what web browser?what city was unix invented in?What computer was used in 1958 for handwriting recognition by Dimond?What was the first time the '@' at sign was used to address an user?Other possible inventors of the Transistor?Why was Apple not able to compete with Microsoft in the home PC market?What was the other 99% that PARC didn't show to Apple?What is the origin of the term “Developer” in the context of software?Given the direct involvement of tech companies has there been any strikes over tech companies’ participation in surveillance culture?Was Donald Knuth the first person to typeset a book using a computer?
After thinking about what page I could post this question on, I figured that this might be the most appropriate so apologies if it isn't...
So we nostalgia fans were all treated to a nineties-esque page on the various Stack Exchange sites, complete with guest books, obnoxious tiled backgrounds, Comic Sans, etc.
However, when I went to view the source code, I was expecting to see tables and frames and the other stuff web developers considered "advanced" at the time, but instead I saw the usual modern inclusion of CSS, java-script and all the rest. But then I got thinking, maybe it still might have worked to a degree, possibly in the late 1990s anyway, possibly some of the more advanced web developers had moved beyond the old tables and frames.
So my question is, could this page have worked on a browser from the 90s assuming a monitor with a good enough resolution, computer with enough memory, etc? And if not, would it have been possible to create this page using whatever HTML code, etc. was available at the time? And if so, would it still work now considering a lot of features may have been deprecated / changed?
computers
asked 6 hours ago
colmdecolmde
404136
add a comment |
After thinking about what page I could post this question on, I figured that this might be the most appropriate so apologies if it isn't...
So we nostalgia fans were all treated to a nineties-esque page on the various Stack Exchange sites, complete with guest books, obnoxious tiled backgrounds, Comic Sans, etc.
However, when I went to view the source code, I was expecting to see tables and frames and the other stuff web developers considered "advanced" at the time, but instead I saw the usual modern inclusion of CSS, java-script and all the rest. But then I got thinking, maybe it still might have worked to a degree, possibly in the late 1990s anyway, possibly some of the more advanced web developers had moved beyond the old tables and frames.
So my question is, could this page have worked on a browser from the 90s assuming a monitor with a good enough resolution, computer with enough memory, etc? And if not, would it have been possible to create this page using whatever HTML code, etc. was available at the time? And if so, would it still work now considering a lot of features may have been deprecated / changed?
computers
asked 6 hours ago
colmdecolmde
404136
add a comment |
After thinking about what page I could post this question on, I figured that this might be the most appropriate so apologies if it isn't...
So we nostalgia fans were all treated to a nineties-esque page on the various Stack Exchange sites, complete with guest books, obnoxious tiled backgrounds, Comic Sans, etc.
However, when I went to view the source code, I was expecting to see tables and frames and the other stuff web developers considered "advanced" at the time, but instead I saw the usual modern inclusion of CSS, java-script and all the rest. But then I got thinking, maybe it still might have worked to a degree, possibly in the late 1990s anyway, possibly some of the more advanced web developers had moved beyond the old tables and frames.
So my question is, could this page have worked on a browser from the 90s assuming a monitor with a good enough resolution, computer with enough memory, etc? And if not, would it have been possible to create this page using whatever HTML code, etc. was available at the time? And if so, would it still work now considering a lot of features may have been deprecated / changed?
computers
asked 6 hours ago
colmdecolmde
404136
After thinking about what page I could post this question on, I figured that this might be the most appropriate so apologies if it isn't...
So we nostalgia fans were all treated to a nineties-esque page on the various Stack Exchange sites, complete with guest books, obnoxious tiled backgrounds, Comic Sans, etc.
However, when I went to view the source code, I was expecting to see tables and frames and the other stuff web developers considered "advanced" at the time, but instead I saw the usual modern inclusion of CSS, java-script and all the rest. But then I got thinking, maybe it still might have worked to a degree, possibly in the late 1990s anyway, possibly some of the more advanced web developers had moved beyond the old tables and frames.
So my question is, could this page have worked on a browser from the 90s assuming a monitor with a good enough resolution, computer with enough memory, etc? And if not, would it have been possible to create this page using whatever HTML code, etc. was available at the time? And if so, would it still work now considering a lot of features may have been deprecated / changed?
computers
computers
asked 6 hours ago
colmdecolmde
404136
asked 6 hours ago
colmdecolmde
404136
asked 6 hours ago
colmdecolmde
404136
asked 6 hours ago
colmdecolmde
404136
asked 6 hours ago
colmdecolmde
404136
404136
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
No. The glitter falling off of the mouse was not possible in 90s era HTML.
answered 6 hours ago
Steven BurnapSteven Burnap
4,0551927
2
Clarification: It was possible (and done, IIRC) to do that effect via other means (eg: Javascript), but probably not the exact HTML being used to do it here.
– T.E.D.♦
2 hours ago
add a comment |
People have actually tried this. The answer is "No".
In particular, you may notice, if you scroll all the way to the bottom, an old-timey "Best viewed in Netscape 3.0" bug. It does not in fact work at all under old installs of Netscape 3.0.
As near as I can tell, the main hang-up seems to be SSL compatibility, but likely if that issue were solved there would be other HTML/Java/Javascript issues, as Mr. Burnap posits.
Obviously most of us, unlike the poster in the linked question, aren't running on Win95 with old browsers. So rather than make it work using actual period web code designed for actual period web browsers that few could appreciate, they made it work on modern web browsers, but with a 1990's look-and-feel.
As someone who was using web browsers since the NSCA Mosaic days, they did a pretty impressive job. My only big complaint is the mouse pointer fiddling they did didn't hose the pointer's responsiveness nearly enough. There's other little touches that could be added (eg: Blink Tag), but it really does look amazingly like the real deal.
answered 2 hours ago
T.E.D.♦T.E.D.
77.3k11172315
add a comment |
All I know is that it has annoyed me to no end. Yes, I know how to turn it off, but since it's on for all the other topics I visit, I've been cringing and turning it off repeatedly. Just not that funny...
answered 19 mins ago
Bill SmithBill Smith
112
New contributor
Bill Smith is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "324"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f51908%2fwas-the-stack-exchange-happy-april-fools-page-fitting-with-the-90s-code%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
No. The glitter falling off of the mouse was not possible in 90s era HTML.
answered 6 hours ago
Steven BurnapSteven Burnap
4,0551927
2
Clarification: It was possible (and done, IIRC) to do that effect via other means (eg: Javascript), but probably not the exact HTML being used to do it here.
– T.E.D.♦
2 hours ago
add a comment |
No. The glitter falling off of the mouse was not possible in 90s era HTML.
answered 6 hours ago
Steven BurnapSteven Burnap
4,0551927
2
Clarification: It was possible (and done, IIRC) to do that effect via other means (eg: Javascript), but probably not the exact HTML being used to do it here.
– T.E.D.♦
2 hours ago
add a comment |
No. The glitter falling off of the mouse was not possible in 90s era HTML.
answered 6 hours ago
Steven BurnapSteven Burnap
4,0551927
No. The glitter falling off of the mouse was not possible in 90s era HTML.
answered 6 hours ago
Steven BurnapSteven Burnap
4,0551927
answered 6 hours ago
Steven BurnapSteven Burnap
4,0551927
answered 6 hours ago
Steven BurnapSteven Burnap
4,0551927
answered 6 hours ago
Steven BurnapSteven Burnap
4,0551927
4,0551927
2
Clarification: It was possible (and done, IIRC) to do that effect via other means (eg: Javascript), but probably not the exact HTML being used to do it here.
– T.E.D.♦
2 hours ago
add a comment |
2
Clarification: It was possible (and done, IIRC) to do that effect via other means (eg: Javascript), but probably not the exact HTML being used to do it here.
– T.E.D.♦
2 hours ago
2
2
Clarification: It was possible (and done, IIRC) to do that effect via other means (eg: Javascript), but probably not the exact HTML being used to do it here.
– T.E.D.♦
2 hours ago
Clarification: It was possible (and done, IIRC) to do that effect via other means (eg: Javascript), but probably not the exact HTML being used to do it here.
– T.E.D.♦
2 hours ago
add a comment |
People have actually tried this. The answer is "No".
In particular, you may notice, if you scroll all the way to the bottom, an old-timey "Best viewed in Netscape 3.0" bug. It does not in fact work at all under old installs of Netscape 3.0.
As near as I can tell, the main hang-up seems to be SSL compatibility, but likely if that issue were solved there would be other HTML/Java/Javascript issues, as Mr. Burnap posits.
Obviously most of us, unlike the poster in the linked question, aren't running on Win95 with old browsers. So rather than make it work using actual period web code designed for actual period web browsers that few could appreciate, they made it work on modern web browsers, but with a 1990's look-and-feel.
As someone who was using web browsers since the NSCA Mosaic days, they did a pretty impressive job. My only big complaint is the mouse pointer fiddling they did didn't hose the pointer's responsiveness nearly enough. There's other little touches that could be added (eg: Blink Tag), but it really does look amazingly like the real deal.
answered 2 hours ago
T.E.D.♦T.E.D.
77.3k11172315
add a comment |
People have actually tried this. The answer is "No".
In particular, you may notice, if you scroll all the way to the bottom, an old-timey "Best viewed in Netscape 3.0" bug. It does not in fact work at all under old installs of Netscape 3.0.
As near as I can tell, the main hang-up seems to be SSL compatibility, but likely if that issue were solved there would be other HTML/Java/Javascript issues, as Mr. Burnap posits.
Obviously most of us, unlike the poster in the linked question, aren't running on Win95 with old browsers. So rather than make it work using actual period web code designed for actual period web browsers that few could appreciate, they made it work on modern web browsers, but with a 1990's look-and-feel.
As someone who was using web browsers since the NSCA Mosaic days, they did a pretty impressive job. My only big complaint is the mouse pointer fiddling they did didn't hose the pointer's responsiveness nearly enough. There's other little touches that could be added (eg: Blink Tag), but it really does look amazingly like the real deal.
answered 2 hours ago
T.E.D.♦T.E.D.
77.3k11172315
add a comment |
People have actually tried this. The answer is "No".
In particular, you may notice, if you scroll all the way to the bottom, an old-timey "Best viewed in Netscape 3.0" bug. It does not in fact work at all under old installs of Netscape 3.0.
As near as I can tell, the main hang-up seems to be SSL compatibility, but likely if that issue were solved there would be other HTML/Java/Javascript issues, as Mr. Burnap posits.
Obviously most of us, unlike the poster in the linked question, aren't running on Win95 with old browsers. So rather than make it work using actual period web code designed for actual period web browsers that few could appreciate, they made it work on modern web browsers, but with a 1990's look-and-feel.
As someone who was using web browsers since the NSCA Mosaic days, they did a pretty impressive job. My only big complaint is the mouse pointer fiddling they did didn't hose the pointer's responsiveness nearly enough. There's other little touches that could be added (eg: Blink Tag), but it really does look amazingly like the real deal.
answered 2 hours ago
T.E.D.♦T.E.D.
77.3k11172315
People have actually tried this. The answer is "No".
In particular, you may notice, if you scroll all the way to the bottom, an old-timey "Best viewed in Netscape 3.0" bug. It does not in fact work at all under old installs of Netscape 3.0.
As near as I can tell, the main hang-up seems to be SSL compatibility, but likely if that issue were solved there would be other HTML/Java/Javascript issues, as Mr. Burnap posits.
Obviously most of us, unlike the poster in the linked question, aren't running on Win95 with old browsers. So rather than make it work using actual period web code designed for actual period web browsers that few could appreciate, they made it work on modern web browsers, but with a 1990's look-and-feel.
As someone who was using web browsers since the NSCA Mosaic days, they did a pretty impressive job. My only big complaint is the mouse pointer fiddling they did didn't hose the pointer's responsiveness nearly enough. There's other little touches that could be added (eg: Blink Tag), but it really does look amazingly like the real deal.
answered 2 hours ago
T.E.D.♦T.E.D.
77.3k11172315
edited 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
T.E.D.♦T.E.D.
77.3k11172315
answered 2 hours ago
T.E.D.♦T.E.D.
77.3k11172315
answered 2 hours ago
T.E.D.♦T.E.D.
77.3k11172315
77.3k11172315
add a comment |
add a comment |
All I know is that it has annoyed me to no end. Yes, I know how to turn it off, but since it's on for all the other topics I visit, I've been cringing and turning it off repeatedly. Just not that funny...
answered 19 mins ago
Bill SmithBill Smith
112
New contributor
Bill Smith is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
All I know is that it has annoyed me to no end. Yes, I know how to turn it off, but since it's on for all the other topics I visit, I've been cringing and turning it off repeatedly. Just not that funny...
answered 19 mins ago
Bill SmithBill Smith
112
New contributor
Bill Smith is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
All I know is that it has annoyed me to no end. Yes, I know how to turn it off, but since it's on for all the other topics I visit, I've been cringing and turning it off repeatedly. Just not that funny...
answered 19 mins ago
Bill SmithBill Smith
112
New contributor
Bill Smith is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
All I know is that it has annoyed me to no end. Yes, I know how to turn it off, but since it's on for all the other topics I visit, I've been cringing and turning it off repeatedly. Just not that funny...
answered 19 mins ago
Bill SmithBill Smith
112
New contributor
Bill Smith is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 19 mins ago
Bill SmithBill Smith
112
New contributor
Bill Smith is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 19 mins ago
Bill SmithBill Smith
112
answered 19 mins ago
Bill SmithBill Smith
112
112
New contributor
Bill Smith is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Bill Smith is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Bill Smith is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to History Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f51908%2fwas-the-stack-exchange-happy-april-fools-page-fitting-with-the-90s-code%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
