The main drawback with the page's unstyled design is that the page is not mobile friendly.<p>Publishing web pages by manually editing HTML files is still very common today; any GitHub Pages blog does this.
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"> is the only thing keeping this page from being mobile friendly.<p>Having that not be the browser default was a good idea in 2008, but not now.
> not mobile friendly.<p>It’s not what I’d call mobile unfriendly either.<p>I had to zoom in slightly but then it’s perfectly readable in landscape.<p>Some very basic inline responsive CSS would make it work great in portrait too.<p>But the thing is, with no ads, complex layout, or other bullshit, it’s perfectly usable on mobile as is.<p>I’d certainly take this over any website from any major media outlet, other than those that are publicly funded like the BBC (and, even then, only in the UK because they show ads everywhere else).
In this pages case, I disagree. I feel like when pages try to force their 'aspect ratio / styling' to fit the view port I have to fight more with it. at least as it stands I can zoom as needed on this page, I can appreciate the web devs 'vision' as in how it probably appeared on their machine. I honestly hate mobile sites unless they are done just super super well which is harder than expected. <a href="https://rockauto.com" rel="nofollow">https://rockauto.com</a> is one such site that I think works really well on mobile.
It's obviously not designed for mobile but I wouldn't call it unfriendly, it's still fast and pretty easy to read. It also works perfectly with Firefox reader mode.
I kinda think it's more mobile friendly than desktop friendly (although it isn't great on either.)<p>It's sorta hard to read text that spans the whole screen and at least on mobile, that's not nearly as wide.
This sounds like a critique of mobile browsers. Make friendliness the default!
Firefox's reader mode works really well on the article, I wonder why it's not the default for unstyled pages.
What part of this is actually not mobile friendly? I’d argue this is laid out pretty well compared to some websites that are “mobile friendly” but load poorly or make it impossible to scroll.
I used reading mode on Safari and it was perfect for reading.
That's a feature for me, not a bug. Not everything has to be everything-friendly all the time, especially if it makes it easier to consume content or stuff.<p>Edit: I'm forgetting about certain accessibility issues, although I'm not sure this plain page isn't a good fit for accessibility tools.