Just out of curiosity:
Do folks consider Gemini/gopher/scroll/nex/etc part of the "small web" movement? Or completely separate? The objectives seem to be similar, even though the protocols are different.
I'm only asking because I'm trying to figure out how best to divide up the pages on my website.
Mar 01 · 2 months ago · 👍 Kaze
12 Comments ↓
🌆 skyjake [...] · Mar 01 at 15:10:
I don't know what the general consensus is, but to me at least the key difference between Small Web and Gemini and its brethren is the technology being used. Both focus on indie/human-level sites and content, but the Small Web accepts the weight and complexity of regular web technologies and browsers, while the latter does not. IMO, this turns out to be a crucial differentiator, because simple protocols like Gemini are both resistant to feature creep and also empower people to create new implementations.
So, the movements are partially aligned in being human-centric, but the technology choices manifest as tangible differences.
Overlapping circles for sure. I interpret the “web” part of “small web” as very general, not in a sense that ties it to *web*site (that is, a HTTP site).
To me, the “small web” is less about technology and more about a culture that emphasises themes like human scale, anti-complexity, non-commercialism, creativity, efficiency, resilience, strong foundations, pluralism, tech-as-art, amateurism, personal connection… and a little bit of cypherpunk burnout nostalgia too.
Without an artificial barrier like Gemini and adjacent protocols it is up to each person where to draw the line of the subset of web technology to use.
Everyone has a different sense of what is too much. And there's always the temptation to use more of what's already there anyway...
To me Gemini is small web; the others are just slumming.
doesn't 'web' describe http world?
xmpp isn't web, but it is another app level protocol over internet's network, transport layers.
I suppose the web is WWW/HTTP technically
🚀 lars_the_bear [OP] · Mar 02 at 08:29:
@norayr : "doesn't 'web' describe http world?" That's exactly my question. In a technical sense I think it does. But to a non-technical person, very likely "web" encompasses the whole of the Internet
And if you use a modern Gemini client, for example, the user experience isn't really any different from using a web browser. I don't think there's any real consensus on this.
i think the reason we have the term "small web" is less about http and more about the person-scale internet as a place (read: non-corpo, non-mainstream), so in that way it should include other protos. that said, years ago i liked to call it "small net", but idk how popular that name is today
That’s why I prefer the term "smolnet" than "small web". It is more inclusive of other solutions. People who use "small web" are either unaware that a life exists outside of the web and/or that there’s a difference between Web and Internet.
While Gemini/gopher are probably fringe, a key component of the "smol scene" is email and mailing-lists. Despites lot of people using it through a web interface, this is clearly not "small web".
v
But I understand "small web" and if "small web" could convince people to make web pages lighter and with less JS, that would be good (unfortunately, this is not the case. I’ve seen people calling their webpage "smallweb" while hiding all their content behind JS functions)
i wish there was an exact standard for what is the subset of modern html that is considered small. sorry for the offtop.
let's say old html didn't have audio/video src, that doesnt make browsers much slower, but even simplifies the web pages.
then browsers like dillo and netsurf would know which parts exactly is necessary to implement. and people would know which parts of html they can use so that smallweb browsers could show their pages properly.
but it is not a very pressing matter for me, i dont have hopes with web and slowly move whatever i can to gemini/spartan.
I think it's pretty obvious -- start with no css or scripting of any kind and stick to basic formatting. Then argue for a few years about what's acceptable.
there is "small web" the umbrella term that means a lot of different things, and then there is the series that is "250kb club", "512kB club" etc. of websites that are all small which you might like! webrings are fun; some are content-oriented, some are circles of friends, others like this have technical requirements.
https://250kb.club/
some people in my webring have very glittery sites that are definitely not small but are super expressive and i like that too. they feel a bit like personal art projects. this fits my idea of a "person-scale" internet: it's made by real people with hobbies, not businesses or social media personalities. small as in not trying to be big, not kB
🚀 lars_the_bear [OP] · Mar 03 at 07:52:
@norayr : "i wish there was an exact standard for what is the subset of modern html that is considered small. "
Well, there's this: