Just watch how fast it loads... only 20 lines of head. Loads like a lightning bolt. This is how the web should be experienced in most circumstances: https://vulfpeck.com/

Fast? Check.
No-bullshit-minimalist? Check. Except for Google Analytics of course.
Well-coded? FAIL.

@Fast-Nop that's the beauty of it; even if it's semi-poorly coded, it STILL works and it STILL loads fast.

@arcsector It doesn't work well for non-visual user agents such as search engines or screenreaders. And even for visual user agents, stuff doesn't have to look that bad in order to be fast.

Also, just having next to no content is a rather cheap way out.

It's a WP site in a PRE tag 😂
Now I've seen it all.

Edit:

** Timing Details **
-- Name Lookup: 0.01s
-- TCP Connect: 0.35s
-- SSL Handshake: 3.01s
-- First Byte: 3.69s
-- Total Download: 5.91s
-- Size: 8973 bytes
** RESULT CODE: 200**

That's a 9KB pre tag 🤦‍♂️

Edit edit: who said you can't do this kind of test on an iPhone 🤨

Alright, notice i never said "this can never be improved ever; its the perfect website". All i was trying to get across was that i prefer this to gmail's bloated asshole of a webclient.

Also - @C0D4 - saying that there's a 9KB pre block is kinda vague... Can you elaborate?

@arcsector Read the source, Luke.

@arcsector the ore tag makes the site a single line of text. It is highly dependent on the white space for formatting.

It's fast because there is 0 structure to the page or resources beyond the inline css and a font. It also makes it volatile to different browsers and readers... @fast-nop is one of the few devs I know off that care about the WCAG standards.

To put it in perspective, my own site not ran on cloud infrastructure of any kind, and includes a 9KB css file (this sites entire content) plus a 30KB image... loads faster.

For comparison: https://c0d4.xyz
** Timing Details **
-- Name Lookup: 0.26s
-- TCP Connect: 0.50s
-- SSL Handshake: 3.01s
-- First Byte: 4.04s
-- Total Download: 6.02s
-- Size: 5988 bytes

There is a lot wrong with modern web pages and a lack of respect for load times and low overheads and standards, I'll agree there, but a single line of text with a couple of css tags that magically work due to <pre> not being respected correctly isn't the way.

@C0D4

Can I just mention that I love the striked-through mention of WordPress on your site

Is this a famous band? I've never heard of them before but the music is dope

@C0D4 And it's not only accessibility problems because the font size is set in px which is moronic, just as setting the width in px is. And the "_blank" target crap. And the missing natural language declaration, in this case "en".

It's also that they managed to fuck up the site for regular mobile even with that little amount of code because the links are much too close.

Of course, that would have been easy to do with actual UL/LI for the link lists and with enough item margin. Just as the album titles should have been actual headings instead of abusing capitals. And the indentation should have been margin instead of abusing white space. But well, the page doesn't even validate, so that's there.

Conclusion: they fucked up what they could with the tiny amount they had. Give these people more rope than a shoelace, and they will hang themselves TWICE with it.

@Mosesrocks i would say relatively famous, but yes their music is absolutely dope. They just posted a whole live show on YouTube if you care to watch.