⋆｡ﾟ☁︎｡⋆｡ ﾟ☾ ﾟ｡⋆
I keep seeing compelling arguments for making private neocities sites mobile-friendly and I can mostly get behind many of them. Still, it isn't as easy of a topic for me to just be on one side of the discussion, honestly; there is a lot I am not sure on yet.
I completely get that smartphones are the device of choice nowadays, and maybe the small web, the retro web, the web revival (whatever you wanna call all these different spaces that overlap) need to get with the times instead of just being stuck on old times when the PC was the device of choice. Maybe this would make this space, community, or movement (depending on how you view it) more interesting and accessible to people. I know there are people who want to get the word out there and get people to stop supporting the big socials and reclaim the web. But I also know of people who enjoy everything being small, niche, and uninteresting to people who know nothing about the internet or tech except for how to open TikTok, so as to not attract specific kinds of people or their habits into the space they fled to. They are scared of the masses on social media following them to their new oasis and ruin the place. So while I see some who want the space to grow and become normalized, some want to gatekeep, and I empathize with both of these groups.
I've also asked myself - what kind of audience do I want? Do I just want fellow neocities users, or do I want to make things palatable for the average internet user? Since I don't need to sell myself or any products on my website, I have the privilege to honestly not care much and make it all about me and what I like. People who do have to advertise their services and products are definitely in a tougher position. I don't have to appeal to anyone or make myself or the site accessible to as many people as possible. I can simply tell myself that some people are gonna like it and some are gonna hate it or not understand; some may never access some of my pages while others can admire them on desktop. I'm ok with that.
But this argument is also sometimes tiresome to me in discussions about mobile accessibility - this idea that you are automatically going to lose out if your site can't be viewed that way, and that it is almost treated as a lack of skill or ignorance, instead of it being.. on purpose, an active choice, or a freedom to have. Maybe even done as a rebellion against the palatable boring web that only prioritizes easy navigation and viewing for sales purposes. Some might have a mobile-unfriendly website to create an aura of exclusivity like "If you are really curious and want the intended experience, you have to use the PC; otherwise, you are locked out. Do you value instant gratification or can you be patient and move to the PC for the reward?" ... and only if you are willing to do that to engage with content proves you are worthy enough to see it?
I don't agree with the idea that it's not okay to not want to cater to everyone. I think we are pretty used to the expectation of being catered to because so many use or have used the corporate internet dominated by big companies with lots of resources and bandwith. We are used to their impeccable design, the support of a huge variety of devices and screen sizes, the guarantee of an app (usually, at least), and everything working and being up 99,9% of the time, maybe even with some accessibility options, catering to a large group. That is a huge feat people tend to take for granted, and I think is a lot to expect from people on their private websites. I don't think they should be expected to compete with that fully. But I get that you can also make the argument that if the personalized web (that is neocities and other selfmade sites) is not fully competing with that, then it will go down and the big socials will prevail.
A big thing I keep coming back to is that many of us, including me, have fled (partially or fully) the big socials not only because of their big issues like addictiveness or outrage content, but also the freedom to design and represent yourself how you want, instead of having to use predesigned profiles that you can barely edit, but that are easy to read and navigate because they all look the same. And this might just be me, but mobile compatibility feels limiting. I think what we are used to on mobile is so colored by what we are used to on social media that it is hard to create a unique mobile experience that isn't a clone of the sites we wanted some space from. It might even be hard to fit our unique and artistic ideas onto a mobile screen at all without destroying the concept. I've also seen the concept that you should start building your desktop website with mobile in mind to avoid this, but that seems even more limiting to me. Now I can't make full use of desktop because everything has to be some stackable responsive rectangle to make it easier for mobile? Oof.
Some of us might actually be against our content being viewed on smartphones at all, because they associate negative things about the device and users who don't have a PC or don't want to browse on a PC. A thing of not wanting the letter to be opened by the wrong recipient, but instead opened by the ones who will understand and appreciate. Mobile compatibility ideas can feel like having to cater to people who would then access content they would not be interested in. But then again - is it useful to judge and make assumptions and already filter people out before they can access the content? Maybe they'll change their mind, get curious, and join (which is what some people want for the web revival community, as mentioned above)?
The mobile vertical rectangle, to me, feels owned by social media, advertisement, and apps. It maybe doesn't have to be. Maybe it would be radical to offer a large amount of neocities websites in this mobile compatible view to change these associations. But I also appreciate the desktop horizontal rectangle in what it has to offer besides just nostalgia - it reminds me of a canvas with a landscape. I can envision art much more on a horizontal computer screen than a vertical smartphone. I enjoy being able to present a lot of content content without scrolling when I want to. It is so hard to make images, buttons and text large enough on mobile to be seen and tapped even with the worst eyes, the smallest screen and the thickest fingers - while also showing other artistic elements setting the mood or showing off some great designs and skill that are not immediately useful for navigation. While I can show many things simultaneously on the big horizontal screen, I'll have to decide in which order elements should appear on mobile. It feels like dumbing my website down; like shaving it down to the essentials and taking things away to make it fit on a lesser platform.
What I mean by this, for example, is that my home page is clearly meant for a horizontal screen. Your eyes can focus on the middle, which shows the important content, but your eyes can also scan throughout the room and choose what to see next in a more interactive, point-and-click game-yfied way. The space inbetween and around it is supposed to prevent it looking too cluttered. If I would want to offer this in a vertical view fully, everything would be too small and cluttered. If I sectioned the content and showed the main info first, then upon scrolling down the shelf area appears and then the desk area, it would completely ruin the idea of a room and not offer all options right away, maybe leading to the desk content being seen less because the shelf holds the first options you see.
My compromise is offering a button for a minimalist version that is mobile-friendly, removes all design elements and just shows a white background with text. I am also working on offering a horizontal view on mobile so upon flipping the phone on the side, the website will switch as we are used to (right now it doesn't). Many, but not all subpages work on mobile, especially the text heavy ones like the Bluebrixx page. I think for now, this is the most sensible option for me.
I know there are people out there who are against stylized and overly complicated pages and I agree that a more minimalist/"reader" version of a website can be helpful as an option to toggle on; but it's not the best or only way you should have to provide information as. There's some elitism involved there at times about how all design is just unneccessary and bullshit and to keep pages as small as possible, and I just have to say: If we wanted a completely blank website with a bit of text and few images that is perfect on smartphones, we could have all stayed on Twitter or Facebook. I think being over the top with design and going all out is the point, or at least a nice option to have that should be encouraged. It's nice if pages aren't just meant to convey information, but also be nice to look at in the artistic way and be their own artpiece, even if it makes some stuff convoluted or unfitting for mobile. I love how it can show off the creators personality and skills differently than just being constrained to "what works best on this device". I like when artists don't just upload pictures of their art, but creating a website that is also like their art, using the medium to create another piece which showcases their other pieces.
Some of the discussions feels to me as if you took a landscape I painted on a horizontal canvas and asked me to cut a small vertical rectangle out of it to fit it into a shelf frame, or as if you would say "Why didn't you just leave it white and hang it on your white walls? Looks cleaner and is easier on the eyes". Or you might be seeing an oil painting on the canvas and ask if you can also view it as a pencil drawing on paper, or ask me to find a way to make it viewable as an embroidery piece if the visitor wants to. It's not always possible to convey the skill, mood and aesthetic of the original piece 1:1 on a different medium, as the medium isn't always as exchangeable as one might think.
𓇽 ° . ༻ 𓈒 ꒪ ๋ ° .𓏲⠀ ๋࣭ ♡ ͘ ࣭⠀⸰ ⋆ ֗ ִ ᨒ .⋆ﾟ. ͘ ࣭⠀⸰ ♡ 𓂂 ◌ 𓇽 ° . ๋ 𓂂 ⠀✼ 𓇽