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?
Is it "common practice in Fourier transform spectroscopy to multiply the measured interferogram by an apodizing function"? If so, why?
Can I cast Thunderwave and be at the center of its bottom face, but not be affected by it?
How to find if SQL server backup is encrypted with TDE without restoring the backup
How can a day be of 24 hours?
Are British MPs missing the point, with these 'Indicative Votes'?
Can a PhD from a non-TU9 German university become a professor in a TU9 university?
Gauss' Posthumous Publications?
Direct Implications Between USA and UK in Event of No-Deal Brexit
Why does freezing point matter when picking cooler ice packs?
Find the majority element, which appears more than half the time
logical reads on global temp table, but not on session-level temp table
Masking layers by a vector polygon layer in QGIS
Is it reasonable to ask other researchers to send me their previous grant applications?
Free fall ellipse or parabola?
How dangerous is XSS
Why can't we say "I have been having a dog"?
Compensation for working overtime on Saturdays
Could you use a laser beam as a modulated carrier wave for radio signal?
How to pronounce fünf in 45
Can Sri Krishna be called 'a person'?
Does int main() need a declaration on C++?
Prodigo = pro + ago?
Planeswalker Ability and Death Timing
Incomplete cube
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 4 hours ago
colmdecolmde
384136
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 4 hours ago
colmdecolmde
384136
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 4 hours ago
colmdecolmde
384136
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 4 hours ago
colmdecolmde
384136
asked 4 hours ago
colmdecolmde
384136
asked 4 hours ago
colmdecolmde
384136
asked 4 hours ago
colmdecolmde
384136
asked 4 hours ago
colmdecolmde
384136
384136
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 4 hours ago
Steven BurnapSteven Burnap
4,0451927
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.♦
16 mins 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 19 mins ago
T.E.D.♦T.E.D.
77.2k11172315
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 4 hours ago
Steven BurnapSteven Burnap
4,0451927
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.♦
16 mins ago
add a comment |
No. The glitter falling off of the mouse was not possible in 90s era HTML.
answered 4 hours ago
Steven BurnapSteven Burnap
4,0451927
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.♦
16 mins ago
add a comment |
No. The glitter falling off of the mouse was not possible in 90s era HTML.
answered 4 hours ago
Steven BurnapSteven Burnap
4,0451927
No. The glitter falling off of the mouse was not possible in 90s era HTML.
answered 4 hours ago
Steven BurnapSteven Burnap
4,0451927
answered 4 hours ago
Steven BurnapSteven Burnap
4,0451927
answered 4 hours ago
Steven BurnapSteven Burnap
4,0451927
answered 4 hours ago
Steven BurnapSteven Burnap
4,0451927
4,0451927
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.♦
16 mins 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.♦
16 mins 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.♦
16 mins 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.♦
16 mins 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 19 mins ago
T.E.D.♦T.E.D.
77.2k11172315
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 19 mins ago
T.E.D.♦T.E.D.
77.2k11172315
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 19 mins ago
T.E.D.♦T.E.D.
77.2k11172315
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 19 mins ago
T.E.D.♦T.E.D.
77.2k11172315
edited 6 mins ago
answered 19 mins ago
T.E.D.♦T.E.D.
77.2k11172315
answered 19 mins ago
T.E.D.♦T.E.D.
77.2k11172315
answered 19 mins ago
T.E.D.♦T.E.D.
77.2k11172315
77.2k11172315
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
