On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 05:31:47PM +0200, Martin Rex wrote:
Please get rid of the "social media" crap entirely.
Strongly seconded. The IETF should not be aiding and abetting
some of the world's worst security and privacy offenders; instead,
it should be scrupulously avoiding using or advocating any of
these mass surveillance/data acquisition operations, particularly
in light of RFC 7258. Doubly so because some of them are
chronic, relentless spammers who use web bugs to conduct even
*more* surveillance and tracking.
All in all, my personal summary for https://beta.ietf.org/
disgusting and extremly bloated, usless and highly confusing.
I really want to be less harsh than this, but unfortunately I also
strongly concur with this point: it's trendy-looking junk that's
horribly overrun by enormous, pointless graphics. (I see zero reason
for just about *any* graphics : there's no functional need
to accomodate illiterate people.) This is a horribly-bloated
major downgrade from the current site and it should be discarded.
It looks to me like far more like an exercise in ego-gratifying graphic
design than an efficient, lightweight/minimal design intended for
professional use by technical personnel. Economy and conciseness are
particularly important to those who don't have the privilege of cheap
high-speed connectivity and/or the wealth to pay the usurious rates
charged by some ISPs. As the IETF seeks increased involvement and
diversity around the world (a goal I strongly support) I think it's
critical to ensure that the resources required for participation are
I recommend rendering it in a text-only browser (e.g., w3m) to see what
the page would look like when stripped down to functional essentials.
There's about 5K of actual content plus 20K-ish of markup buried in about
1M of cruft: in other words, the page as it is right now is roughly 40X
the size it needs to be to get the job done. That's ridiculous.
Let me also note that passing that page through validators like
tidy or the W3C validator yields quite a few errors and warnings.
No, it's not necessary to obsessively clobber every last one of
those, but a lot of them would just go away if all of the useless
cruft was stripped out.
 Small, isolated, occasional exceptions -- let's say, a graph or
an illustration -- might be acceptable. But they should probably be
thumbnails that link to the actual image, so that only those who are
interested in that particular item need to load it.