Comments on: Comments on 18577

Post number 18577

Su — Fri, 19 Jul 2002 16:17:55 -0800

A while back, I linked the world's smallest web site, which was 32px². Of course, someone would take that as some sort of a challenge.
So here's the new smallest site in all its glory: Dot16.
If you revisit Guimp, you'll note they're not too pleased about this.

By: atom128

atom128 — Fri, 19 Jul 2002 18:09:58 -0800

War? Any smaller and it gets stupider than it already is. I mean, the only way I can navigate dot16 is by reading the alt tags. I say Guimp wins because it at least had games.

By: bobo123

bobo123 — Fri, 19 Jul 2002 18:17:01 -0800

I guess the smallest possible would be 1 pixel squared, navigation would have to be done by audio ( "To hear today's message, click the pixel now... to turn the pixel blue, click the pixel now..."). Is zero pixels possible?

By: atom128

atom128 — Fri, 19 Jul 2002 18:21:19 -0800

use keyboard navigation? "to hear todays message, press space"

By: Modem Ovary

Modem Ovary — Fri, 19 Jul 2002 18:54:24 -0800

Guimp wins for innovation, hands down. You just can't rip off something like guimp.com without being obvious. I love the shoot-down anim of dot 16 on their home page. Maybe I could make the worlds biggest website where users have to scroll for miles to read a word!

By: clevershark

clevershark — Fri, 19 Jul 2002 20:56:59 -0800

The world's smallest web site appears to be Fark these days... whenever I have tried to visit this week I got the message "Document contains no data" ^_^

By: precocious

precocious — Fri, 19 Jul 2002 21:02:07 -0800

One of those has to be the single most annoying thing since blink tags. Pick one.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Fri, 19 Jul 2002 21:13:11 -0800

precocious -- do we really have to pick just the one in this case?

By: monkeyJuice

monkeyJuice — Sat, 20 Jul 2002 01:15:08 -0800

ok, hands up how many people lent forward when they saw this :-)

By: c3o

c3o — Sat, 20 Jul 2002 03:07:56 -0800

Hmm, technically, isn't that a normal-sized web page with just a really tiny part used for actual content? Since when do whitespace or background images not count as part of a site?

By: Su

Su — Sat, 20 Jul 2002 15:03:53 -0800

C3o: I would guess ever since people decided that they would get really really pissed off when they had their windows made to open up at tiny sizes. There was a link posted a long time ago to an on-line art mag that would open up as many as twelve windows, all about 100x100, and line them up on the screen in a grid to show the info. Impressive? Yes. Damn annoying? Hell yeah. The thread ended up talking about that more than the magazine. Probably because it also crashed almost everyone's browser on top of it.

By: betobeto

betobeto — Sat, 20 Jul 2002 20:23:57 -0800

Damn. Now I really need glasses. I can't wait to see the next dork releasing an 8-pixel wide site just to beat this one - NOT! That kid would have a future designing for Web-enabled wrist PDAs you can use with a toothpick though.

By: i_cola

i_cola — Sun, 21 Jul 2002 00:38:57 -0800

1024x768 on an iMac - OW! Records are made to be broken...

By: kingFresh

kingFresh — Sun, 21 Jul 2002 13:50:49 -0800

coolornot claims to be 15x17 if anyone cares.