July 19, 2002
4:17 PM   Subscribe

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.
posted by Su (13 comments total)
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.
posted by atom128 at 6:09 PM on July 19, 2002

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?
posted by bobo123 at 6:17 PM on July 19, 2002

use keyboard navigation?
"to hear todays message, press space"
posted by atom128 at 6:21 PM on July 19, 2002

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!
posted by Modem Ovary at 6:54 PM on July 19, 2002

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" ^_^
posted by clevershark at 8:56 PM on July 19, 2002

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

Pick one.
posted by precocious at 9:02 PM on July 19, 2002

precocious -- do we really have to pick just the one in this case?
posted by clevershark at 9:13 PM on July 19, 2002

ok, hands up how many people lent forward when they saw this :-)
posted by monkeyJuice at 1:15 AM on July 20, 2002

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?
posted by c3o at 3:07 AM on July 20, 2002

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.
posted by Su at 3:03 PM on July 20, 2002

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.
posted by betobeto at 8:23 PM on July 20, 2002

1024x768 on an iMac - OW!

Records are made to be broken...
posted by i_cola at 12:38 AM on July 21, 2002

coolornot claims to be 15x17 if anyone cares.
posted by kingFresh at 1:50 PM on July 21, 2002

« Older All of us abuse the hand sanitizer:   |   NASA finds gravitational 'space freeway' that runs... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments