Especially check our their section on “Sustainable Web Craft” which is very related to recent posts on no-JavaScript, retro-designed blogs, “2mb club”, “nojs club” etc!
This isn’t my magazine. I was also surprised they chose WordPress. I’m sure this is a testament to the editors not being engineers. I too would have expected a simple static site, generated offline.
But I must say Wordpress is a great choice for when you have many writers and you want things to just work for them. Imagine having to massage each document by hand - for each new guest author.
The credits show Jack Lenox worked on this website, and he’s done some cool stuff to make Wordpress more sustainable, such as the Susty Wordpress theme, which delivers Wordpress in 6KB.
I do think that all else being equal, a static website will have better performance / be more sustainable than a dynamic website through Wordpress, but often all other things are not equal. A slim Wordpress design can outperform a more bloated design on a static site. Simply including e.g. a YouTube embed in a Hugo blog post could easily destroy all of your efficiency gains from using a static site generator.
Oh, I see. I mentally correct “Especially check our their section” to “check our section” rather than “check out their section” and thought it’s yours.
Myself, I think having authors write in Markdown or similar solves the consistency problem. Also, paper magazines/journals and many online publications both have their house style rules they force on writers, and have a person who checks incoming manuscripts and tells authors where they deviate from the rules.
This reminds me of certain parts of Low-Tech Magazine.
Especially check our their section on “Sustainable Web Craft” which is very related to recent posts on no-JavaScript, retro-designed blogs, “2mb club”, “nojs club” etc!
Why don’t you yourself join a “no WordPress club”? ;)
What is it that makes a heavyweight dynamic CMS necessary for your website?
This isn’t my magazine. I was also surprised they chose WordPress. I’m sure this is a testament to the editors not being engineers. I too would have expected a simple static site, generated offline.
But I must say Wordpress is a great choice for when you have many writers and you want things to just work for them. Imagine having to massage each document by hand - for each new guest author.
The credits show Jack Lenox worked on this website, and he’s done some cool stuff to make Wordpress more sustainable, such as the Susty Wordpress theme, which delivers Wordpress in 6KB.
I do think that all else being equal, a static website will have better performance / be more sustainable than a dynamic website through Wordpress, but often all other things are not equal. A slim Wordpress design can outperform a more bloated design on a static site. Simply including e.g. a YouTube embed in a Hugo blog post could easily destroy all of your efficiency gains from using a static site generator.
Oh, I see. I mentally correct “Especially check our their section” to “check our section” rather than “check out their section” and thought it’s yours.
Myself, I think having authors write in Markdown or similar solves the consistency problem. Also, paper magazines/journals and many online publications both have their house style rules they force on writers, and have a person who checks incoming manuscripts and tells authors where they deviate from the rules.
They even request submissions as Markdown.
The fact that the call for submissions is a link to the Mozilla wiki suggests that “house style rules” is far down on the todo list still.