• Season two of Computer Freaks is an insightful and sharp look at how commerce on the web forever transformed it. Chritine Haughney Dare-Bryan expands on the story she told about the Internet in the podcast’s first season. But a story that begins with detailed discussions of protocols and capabilities of a newly commercial web quickly becomes a story about viewpoints, and ideology, and the way that personalities clashed on the most exciting technology of modern history.

    One of the players in all of this was Kevin Hughes. It’s a name that hasn’t been associated with the web’s history too often, but who’s contribution to the early web was massive. Hughes was fundamnetal in the design of early ecommerce systems, and he created the design language that’s second nature to us all these days: the green security lock to mark a page as secure, the early interactions with forms.

    But Hughes worked alongside giants that would build the second iteration of the web, most notably Marc Andreessen and the team he built at Netscape. A team that would take on and ultimately supplant the work being done at EIT. In the shuffle, Hughes story was mostly forgotten except in old recordings and transcripts. This podcast is at least, in part, an attempt to shift that.

    Near the end of series, and without giving too much away, Haughney surfaces the greatest fissure that happened during this commercial boom. The web’s innovators self-sorted.

    One the one side were the perceived “winners,” the capitalists that seized control of the moment, turned the web mainstream, and gave it a commercial purpose.. This is not meant to be a purely cynical take. Some of this path was laid with the best of intentions, and it’s difficult to imagine a web as broad and accessible as it is today without these contributions.

    It’s the other side that get’s forgotten. The idealists. The tinkerers. They imagined a future web about access and openness. They came to the web to do things that they loved, and they imbued their work with a little bit of themselves.

    Hughes belonged to that latter group, and there’s a line towards the end of the podcast that brought me to tears (a bit of emphasis mine).

    You know, I met so many millionaires and people that went on to become billionaires…

    When you live in this world, it was easy to see people change a bit and get caught up in things that brought them far from where they started. And I made it a point to just not think that way. So by the time I moved into the small room in my friend’s house after all this in Oahu, I just kept on doing what I knew how to do the best way I could. And I remember a friend commenting to me about this. He said, I can’t believe you just went through all of that, but you’re still you. You haven’t really changed. And I thought that was really nice of him to say that

    Hughes went through tremendous tragedy during the collapse of the dot-com era. He eventually turned away from it to hang up his hat in Oahu and work on fostering arts and technology in his local community in Hawaii.

    We forget sometimes that the web was created by idealists. It broadened minds. It showcased learning and culture for its own sake. It was made by and for people that remained themselves, even when it was convenient not too. That’s the web that Kevin Hughes wanted. And maybe, just maybe, we’ve let too many people in the room that represent product and not enough that represent ideals. But it’s not too late to still build it.

  • A great bird’s eye view of the visual programming historical landscape, starting with Visual Basic in 1991 and ending with what is ultimately a push to use Nordcraft’s product in 2025.

    Salma’s actual point, however, is that visual coding apps and platforms have failed to get it “right” even after 30 years of attempts.

    It’s no surprise we weren’t getting it right in 1995, if we 
    still can’t get it right 30 years later with all of this knowledge, experience, and empathy under our belts. And I’m not even going to mention at this point how AI can’t get this right, either. Of course it can’t; it doesn’t possess the capacity for empathy.

    Which, of course, is an indirect response to Figma introducing its own visual site builder, Figma Sites. The public response to Figma Sites has been abysmal because of the inaccessible HTML that the tool generates.

    This week on May 7th 2025 Figma announced Figma Sites, a tool to publish your designs built in Figma directly to the web. But this new product has not been well received. Adrian Roselli warns us: Do not publish your designs on the web with Figma Sites.

    Adrian’s post doesn’t even delve deeply into the accessibility issues produced by Figma Sites. All he needs to do is run simple automated tests to demonstrate just how deep the dumpster fire is.

    It feels relevant to bring up Jakob Neilsen’s recent remarks that AI will completely eliminate accessibility issues:

    Accessibility will disappear as a concern for web design, as disabled users will only use an agent that transforms content and features to their specific needs.

    Will it? Even if it does, perhaps Jony Ive’s warning to designers from Stripe Sessions 2025 this past week:

    Even if you’re innocent in your intention, if you’re involved in something that has poor consequences, you need to own it.

  • There are two events drifting the web back to a place of what feels like peaceful simplicity.

    CSS Day is coming up in June. It’s speaker lineup is packed with some of the most thoughtful CSS practitioners and creators the web has. There’s a lot to be excited about there, but what’s most refreshing is that it’s about CSS. No frameworks, no vibe coding. Just. Simple. CSS.

    They will be talking about building something sustainable and sturdy using CSS as a foundation. They’ll be returning to a core technology that makes the web great and showing what it makes possible in practice.

    Then there’s the jQuery reunion. jQuery left its mark on the history of web development. But it’s important to remember that its genesis began at a time when the web was filled with a lot of potential. And I think it’s fair to say that jQuery helped it find that potential and deliver it to a massive audience (something it’s also fair to say it’s largely still doing on many, many websites).

    It’s a good moment to return to. To turn over and examine what we were all trying to gain and work towards in that moment. I expect we’ll see a lot of that kind of thing at the reunion.

    Hidden in these examinations of the core technologies of the web is a desire to return to a web design industry that was innovating and creating at a rapid clip. The vision of the web was to share, outwardly, information with one another. And returning to simplicity is often what makes that possible. It makes the web broadly accessible. It turns anyone into a web creator.

    Maybe us old timers will keep trying to make things simple. And maybe that’s a good thing actually.

  • W3C Technical Architecture Group:

    Third-party (AKA cross-site) cookies are harmful to the web, and must be removed from the web platform. 

    […]

    We are strongly in favor of innovations to build sustainable business models on the web platform, but an in-depth discussion of the various possibilities are outside of the scope of this document. From an architectural standpoint, web standards should avoid encoding particular business models that are available to authors, publishers, and web content creators.

    Them are some strong words from the W3C that leave no doubt about their opinion to remove third-party cookies from the web. We recently noted that Google is sidestepping COPPA regulations. Something tells me the W3C is publishing this in response to Google dropping its own plans to remove third-party cookies from Chrome. Let the battle begin!

  • I could chuck christopher.org on Pressable and it would have a good long life there surely, but now it’s tied to my own future death and legacy plan. Automattic has 100-year domains ($2,000) and 100-year hosting. ($38,000, includes domain). Jesse mentioned we could get christopher.org onto that as well. 

    Ari (Christopher’s partner in life and business), David (Christopher’s brother), and I talked it over and agreed it would be a good plan. 

    100 years! This is longer than any of us can promise good stewardship of Christopher’s digital footprint. 

    I imagine that maintaining someone else’s digital footprint following their death has to feel like a major responsibility. And while the thought of a 100-year domain and hosting bundle for $40,000 might seem ludicrous to those of us who are living, I get how relieving it would be to get those responsibilities off your plate and wipe your hands clean of that overhead for the rest of your life.

    It’s not a bad idea in an estate plan, either. In addition to funeral costs, there’s something about planning in advance for what to do with your digital presence once you’re gone.

    And Christopher, you should know I got your Grunt build process running again. You’re welcome. But I’m not going to fix those Sass warnings. They are just deprecation warnings, it’s fine.

    LOL, I can only hope that someone would do me the favor of maintaining my outdated Gulp scripts and dependencies after I’m gone. Then again, a backwards-compatible web should ensure that I never have to worry about that, so long as my website is properly archived.

  • Google is planning to allow users under 13 to use their AI product, Gemini. But like so many others in this space, they are giving the game away:

    Like its Workplace for Education accounts, Google says children’s data will not be used to train AI. Still, in the email, Google warns parents that “Gemini can make mistakes,” and kids “may encounter content you don’t want them to see.”

    Our legal frameworks have begun to fall apart in the age of AI. Section 230, for instance, is difficult to apply in an age when there is no personal responsibility. If I prompt AI to make me something, and it generates something illegal, how do we regulate that?

    There have been some strides but a combination of powerful lobbying and technical incoherence in the federal government is slow.

    Google is going to test the limits of COPPA with this one. If you work on the web, you have likely had to make adjustments to sites to ensure compliance with COPPA. It’s a pretty smart law and it protects children using the web from having their data improperly collected. That’s why Google is making this claim. That way we they can say later they tried their best, but AI is just too difficult to control.

    We can’t allow companies to pass their accountability over the machines.

  • Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!