Do you remember the internet of the early 2000s? Neat single function websites that let you be creative and customize your spaces and weren't setting out to be the next major conglomerate (or to be bought by them).I'm building a series of websites that have simple concepts but too many of the players have tried to make their product so big. I also used to live in a very rural area so my goal is to make websites that load fast even on very slow internet. I'm starting with Lynx.boo.A linktree style website that lets you fully customize your CSS (and adds a bunch of classes to your links to help style them easier as well as very non-restrictive CSS you can do html{display:none;} if you really want to) and the features aren't locked behind yet-another monthly fee. I'll be adding analytic support when I figure out the best way to do it.Also there isn't a user system (per se), you just confirm changes by email but you never register for the site and you won't be spammed. Please feel free to try to break the CSS (or anything) as much as you want. I think it's fairly robust but I would love any security vulnerabilities you see.Thank you for your time!
Users commented on a Show HN product with a brutalist design, noting its resemblance to 1970s NASA and MOMA simplicity but lacking key brutalist elements. There were technical issues with site links, mobile layout, and email confirmations, with suggestions to improve form validation and email clarity. Some praised the minimalism and small page sizes, while others found the title requirement annoying. The NeatCSS project was promoted, with comparisons to other CSS libraries. Discussions on spam, SEO, and self-advertisement arose, with mixed reactions to link-saving processes and design choices. Users debated the necessity of JavaScript for minimalist websites and suggested improvements for UX and accessibility. There were also issues with email delivery, particularly with non-Gmail services, and calls for a demo page before requiring email sign-up.
The Show HN product received criticisms for not embodying true brutalist design, with suggestions for softer colors and a more authentic approach. Users disliked the decayed fonts, preferring cleaner styles, and noted issues with form validation, email confirmations, and spam. The reliance on JavaScript and component libraries was criticized, as was the lack of accessibility and long-term maintenance. The .boo domain was seen as hard to remember, and there were calls for a demo page. Concerns about spam, security vulnerabilities, and unresponsive support were also prevalent.