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?
What happens if you break a law in another country outside of that country?
Shortening a title without changing its meaning
Small nick on power cord from an electric alarm clock, and copper wiring exposed but intact
Identify and count spells (Distinctive events within each group)
Why did the Drakh emissary look so blurred in S04:E11 "Lines of Communication"?
Could a dragon use its wings to swim?
What steps are necessary to read a Modern SSD in Medieval Europe?
How did scripture get the name bible?
Could a dragon use hot air to help it take off?
Car headlights in a world without electricity
Which acid/base does a strong base/acid react when added to a buffer solution?
Calculating discount not working
Why does sin(x) - sin(y) equal this?
Is the 21st century's idea of "freedom of speech" based on precedent?
Read/write a pipe-delimited file line by line with some simple text manipulation
Is it possible to make a 9x9 table fit within the default margins?
Is it OK to decorate a log book cover?
How to coordinate airplane tickets?
How do I secure a TV wall mount?
Compensation for working overtime on Saturdays
What did the word "leisure" mean in late 18th Century usage?
How can I separate the number from the unit in argument?
Gauss' Posthumous Publications?
Can Sri Krishna be called 'a person'?
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 5 hours ago
colmdecolmde
394136
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 5 hours ago
colmdecolmde
394136
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 5 hours ago
colmdecolmde
394136
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 5 hours ago
colmdecolmde
394136
asked 5 hours ago
colmdecolmde
394136
asked 5 hours ago
colmdecolmde
394136
asked 5 hours ago
colmdecolmde
394136
asked 5 hours ago
colmdecolmde
394136
394136
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
No. The glitter falling off of the mouse was not possible in 90s era HTML.
answered 5 hours ago
Steven BurnapSteven Burnap
4,0551927
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.♦
1 hour 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 1 hour ago
T.E.D.♦T.E.D.
77.3k11172315
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
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
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 5 hours ago
Steven BurnapSteven Burnap
4,0551927
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.♦
1 hour ago
add a comment |
No. The glitter falling off of the mouse was not possible in 90s era HTML.
answered 5 hours ago
Steven BurnapSteven Burnap
4,0551927
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.♦
1 hour ago
add a comment |
No. The glitter falling off of the mouse was not possible in 90s era HTML.
answered 5 hours ago
Steven BurnapSteven Burnap
4,0551927
No. The glitter falling off of the mouse was not possible in 90s era HTML.
answered 5 hours ago
Steven BurnapSteven Burnap
4,0551927
answered 5 hours ago
Steven BurnapSteven Burnap
4,0551927
answered 5 hours ago
Steven BurnapSteven Burnap
4,0551927
answered 5 hours ago
Steven BurnapSteven Burnap
4,0551927
4,0551927
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.♦
1 hour ago
add a comment |
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.♦
1 hour 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.♦
1 hour 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.♦
1 hour 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 1 hour 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 1 hour 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 1 hour 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 1 hour ago
T.E.D.♦T.E.D.
77.3k11172315
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
T.E.D.♦T.E.D.
77.3k11172315
answered 1 hour ago
T.E.D.♦T.E.D.
77.3k11172315
answered 1 hour ago
T.E.D.♦T.E.D.
77.3k11172315
77.3k11172315
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
