Internetcore
The old web, remembered on purpose.
A contemporary aesthetic that deliberately reconstructs and remixes the visual language of early personal computing and the web.?
Ada's bindery
Notebooks Repairs Guestbook Links
Hand-bound notebooks, repaired books, and notes from the bench. new
Last updated this week.
Visitors 004211
Drag toward 2026. Each part will tell you why it changed.
Aesthetary specimen. Illustration, not evidence: no 1998 page is reproduced here.
Same page, same parts. Drag toward 2026 and each part changes its reason before it changes its look. One of them never changes its look at all.
| Part | Why it looks this way |
|---|---|
| Layout | ConstraintA narrow, centred column. Limited CSS and layout capability.A fluid grid. The narrow column survives as a chosen measure. Modern layout can imitate limitation. |
| Background | ConstraintA tiled image behind everything — the homepage vernacular.A flat ground. The tile is quoted once, as a band. |
| Image | ConstraintSmall and soft. Compression was necessary.Large, pixels left visible on purpose. Compression can be stylistic. |
| Links | ConstraintBlue and underlined. Default controls were defaults.The same blue, the same underline — selected. Nothing changed but the reason. |
| Type | ConstraintThe default serif at the default size.The same serif, at a display scale no default reached. |
| Motion | ConstraintA blinking badge. Primitive animation reflected the available technology.An authored two-frame pip that stops for reduced motion. Deliberately authored. |
- Native medium
- Screen — the web and the desktop
- Period
- A late-2010s–2020s revival of c. 1995–2005 source languages
- Carried by
- Interface, used as graphic material
- Also called
- Webcore
How you recognise it
Does the design intentionally aestheticize the visual language of obsolete computing or the early internet??
If the answer is no, age alone does not make something Internetcore. The distinction is intent: early sites looked the way they did because they had to; Internetcore recreates, exaggerates and recombines those conventions after the limits have gone.?
Learn
What is it, why does it look this way, where did it come from, and how do I recognise it correctly?
What Internetcore is
Internetcore treats obsolete digital interfaces as visual culture.?
It borrows from early websites, desktop operating systems, primitive browser interfaces and the vernacular graphics of the consumer internet: bitmap icons, browser windows, system dialogs, tiled backgrounds, low-resolution imagery, default-looking hyperlinks, cursors and deliberately unsophisticated animation.
But it is not simply old web design. The distinction is intent.?
Then — the limit was real
Centred table, default controls, default serif — because that is what the page had.
Now — the limit is quoted
Same grammar — sunken field, raised button, default serif — chosen, and set at a scale no default reached.
Two Aesthetary specimens. Neither is a historical artefact.
Internetcore (also Webcore) is a name, attested on the fan-edited Aesthetics Wiki, for a late-2010s–2020s internet aesthetic that uses the visual and audio language of the early internet (c. 1995–2005) to evoke nostalgia. Treating it as a design practice that deliberately quotes Web 1.0, browser and desktop conventions is Aesthetary's reading. Documented · Source attached
Not ENA-era Webcore: on the fan wiki that defines the name, Webcore (also Internetcore) now names a surrealist deconstruction that places old-web motifs in abstract, dreamlike voids, popularised by the animated series ENA (2020). This record is the design practice of quoting early-web and desktop interface; the ENA sense is outside it. Documented · Source attached
The source material
Internetcore quotes from four source languages. Open each window to see what it contributes.
What personal homepage contributes
- Tiled backgrounds
- Counters
- Badges
- Guestbooks
- Web rings
- Underlined links
Aesthetary specimen of the source language. Not an artefact.
What desktop UI contributes
- Windows
- Menus
- Dialogs
- Icons
- Folders
- System controls
Aesthetary specimen of the source language. Not an artefact.
What browser contributes
- Chrome
- Address bars
- Status indicators
- Tabs and windows
- Loading states
Aesthetary specimen of the source language. Not an artefact.
What primitive digital graphics contributes
- Pixels
- GIF-like motion
- Bitmap assets
- Crude 3D
- Compressed imagery
Aesthetary specimen of the source language. Not an artefact.
These are source languages, not a checklist. Internetcore emerges from their deliberate quotation and recombination.?
Web 1.0 is not Internetcore
| Web 1.0 | Internetcore |
|---|---|
| A historical artefact | A contemporary aesthetic |
| The constraints were real | The constraints are quoted |
| Limited CSS and layout capability | Modern layout can imitate limitation |
| Compression was necessary | Compression can be stylistic |
| Default controls were defaults | Default-looking controls are selected |
| Primitive animation reflected the available technology | Primitive-looking animation can be deliberately authored |
Web 1.0 is evidence.
Internetcore is interpretation.?
Anatomy of an Internetcore page
Six parts. Select a number to isolate it.
Aesthetary diagram. The parts are the manuscript's; the composition is ours.
Where it came from
Personal computing establishes the desktop-interface vernacular.
Stage 1 of 5Internetcore did not continue uninterrupted from the early web. The break in the bar is the point: its retrospective quality is part of its identity.?
Decades only: the bar draws no dated events. The dated findings research has made are in Sources, each with its own label.
Nearest neighbours
Historical constraint →
The limits were real and the look followed from them. That is the historical source: evidence, not a retrospective aesthetic.?
The answer changes the classification. Only obsolete interface quotation lands here.
Obsolete interface quotation →
Internetcore
Old interface language, chosen now, after the limits have gone. This is the one.
Millennial futurism →
Broader millennium-era futurism and consumer culture — not specifically about the internet itself.?
The answer changes the classification. Only obsolete interface quotation lands here.
Pixel rendering →
Pixel art — a technique
A rendering technique that can appear inside many aesthetics. On its own it classifies nothing.?
The answer changes the classification. Only obsolete interface quotation lands here.
Rule-breaking →
Challenges conventional design norms. It need not reference obsolete computing at all.?
The answer changes the classification. Only obsolete interface quotation lands here.
Consumer and media nostalgia →
Nostalgia filtered through consumer and media culture, with its own music and art lineage.?
The answer changes the classification. Only obsolete interface quotation lands here.
Raw, conspicuous structure →
Contemporary rawness and visible structure, without requiring internet nostalgia.?
The answer changes the classification. Only obsolete interface quotation lands here.
What Internetcore is not
One of these is Internetcore. Six are not. Open each to check.
-
Not this. A contemporary SaaS card in a bitmap face. The font is the only reference, so it is costume. (Pixel font everywhere)
-
Not this. One quoted window on an otherwise contemporary page. A nostalgic prop, not a language. (One Windows 95 reference)
-
Not this. Ugliness is not a reference. Rule-breaking without computing history sits nearer Anti-Design. (An ugly website)
-
Not this. Glossy millennial futurism. About the future the era imagined, not the internet itself — see Y2K. (A Y2K interface)
-
This. Browser chrome, default-link grammar, a bitmap icon and a system control, recombined in a modern layout. The references agree with each other.
-
Not this. An old website is the source, not the quotation. That is Web 1.0: evidence. (Just an old website)
-
Not this. Windows as a productivity feature, in a contemporary glass skin. Nothing is being remembered. (Draggable windows)
The visual language has to coherently reference internet and computing history, rather than using one nostalgic prop.?
Build
How do I actually design a website with it?
Every rule below carries one of four marks.
Composition
Core · Specified · proposedThree structural metaphors, each drawn from a source language. Pick the one your content supports — do not stack all three.
Early-page flow: one column, top to bottom, links inline. Our guidance: suits writing, personal and single-purpose sites.
- Expose interface structure. Frames, bars and panels are visible, not hidden.
- Let hierarchy feel digital rather than editorial.
- Small modules can accumulate instead of becoming giant contemporary cards.
- Layering is legitimate when the desktop metaphor supports it.
- Imperfection should look intentional.
The rules behind it
- Our readingThree structural metaphors, each drawn from a source language: Document, Desktop, Portal.
- Web translationOn narrow screens the Desktop metaphor stops overlapping: windows stack in reading order, each keeping its title bar. Overlap that hides content on a phone is not a quotation, it is a bug.
- Web translationThe Document metaphor keeps a narrow measure even on wide screens — the narrow column survives as a chosen width, not a table limit.
- Not researched yetGrid, column count and spacing values. None are on the record.
Typography
Core · Specified · proposedInternetcore does not require a pixel font.?
What matters is that the typography participates in the computing and internet reference. Four families of reference:
Repairs, rebinds and notebooks
Send a book in and it comes back sewn, cased and labelled. Most repairs take two weeks.
See recent repairs004211visits this year
Diagnostic. The serif is the unstyled page, the sans is the interface, and the bitmap face appears once — on the counter, where resolution is the subject.
The rules behind it
- Our readingFour families of reference: system sans, bitmap or display, monospace, and the browser-default serif.
- Our readingA pixel font everywhere is costume.
- Web translationGive each family one job: default serif for reading and display, system sans for interface, bitmap only where resolution is the subject (counters, status, specimens).
- Web translation · accessibilityBody text never in a bitmap face below 16px; bitmap faces render unevenly when scaled off their grid.
- Not researched yetSpecific typefaces, sizes and a type scale.
Colour
Core · Specified · proposedThere is no Internetcore palette.
Palettes are inherited from whichever digital reference you are quoting. Choose the source first; the colours follow.?
Blue links, visited purple, a neutral ground: the unstyled page.
Send a book
#FFFFFF
#0000EE
#551A8B
#000000
#C0C0C0
The manuscript names these palettes in words. The hex values are ours, and no palette here is canonical.
The rules behind it
- Web translationEvery colour value shown for a palette source is Aesthetary's; the saturated homepage set is adjusted so text on its grounds passes 4.5:1.
- Web translation · accessibilityLinks stay distinguishable by more than colour — keep the underline.
Shape
Core · Specified · proposedRectangular interface primitives. Hard edges, system-window geometry, pixel boundaries, native-control proportions.
Rounded corners are not forbidden. They become suspicious when the interface starts reading as generic contemporary SaaS rather than obsolete computing.? Drag to find where that happens.
System geometry. Reads as interface.
Linen, 96 pages.
The rules behind it
- Web translationRadius 0 on windows, fields and buttons. Where the quoted source itself rounds a corner, round only that element, and only to that degree.
- Web translationDepth comes from 1px bevels (light top-left, dark bottom-right), never from blurred shadows.
Image
Supporting · Specified · proposedLow fidelity should have a reason.?
Six image types. Each caption names the reason its low fidelity is there.
Six Aesthetary specimens, generated in the browser. No historical images are shown.
The rules behind it
- Our readingSix image types: compressed raster, GIF-like animation, bitmap icon, primitive CGI, webcam or personal imagery, scanned image.
Components
Core · Specified · proposedHistorical Internetcore sources do not establish a canonical contemporary component library. The components shown are contemporary translations of the visual rules.?
Bindery, since this spring
Notebooks sewn by hand, one signature at a time.
Pick a cover, pick a paper. Each one ships in about ten days.
Everything here works. Order opens a system dialog; OK runs a stepped loading state; the second button carries a tooltip; the menu marks the current page with a sunken field.
The page underneath is responsive, keyboard-reachable and uses real form controls. The primitive look is on the surface only — deliberate technical naïveté.
Button
Raised by bevel, pressed by inverting it. The default action carries one extra black outline. No fill colour marks importance.
Input
Sunken, label above. Errors are named in words; red is never the only signal.
Checkbox
A sunken square with a drawn tick. Native checkbox underneath.
Navigation
Two dialects: underlined hyperlinks for the document, a menu bar for the application. Keep visited state — it is part of the grammar.
Window and dialog
The title bar carries state: filled when focused, greyed when not. A dialog is a small window that asks one question.
Module, tooltip, loading
Modules accumulate small; the tooltip is a pale field with a 1px rule; progress fills in discrete blocks.
The rules behind it
- Our readingDefault-looking controls may retain browser and OS associations; windows, dialogs and floating elements can replace page sections.
- Web translationEvery state, value and behaviour of the components shown: the bevel recipe, the extra outline on the default action, the sunken current-page marker and the block progress bar are Aesthetary's reconstruction.
- Web translation · accessibilityReal form controls underneath; visible focus on everything; touch targets at least 32px tall; dialogs trap focus and close on Escape.
Motion
Supporting · Specified · proposedSix motions from the vocabulary. Each is marked by where it comes from: a behaviour the old environment had, or a recreation authored now.
| frame rate | 4–8 frames per second, steps(). Never tweened. |
|---|---|
| state change | Instant. A pressed button, an opened menu or a hover swaps state with no transition. |
| window move | Direct manipulation, 1:1, no easing. Keyboard alternative required. |
| loading | Blocks added one at a time. No shimmer, no skeleton gradients. |
| ambient | At most one looping element in view. More than that is costume (see 02.8). |
| reduced motion | Freeze the animation without removing the digital artefact that communicates the aesthetic. |
The rules behind it
- Our readingA six-part motion vocabulary — blink, marquee travel, frame animation, loading and progress, cursor response, window movement — each either a historical behaviour or a contemporary recreation.
- Our readingReduced motion should freeze the animation without removing the digital artefact that communicates the aesthetic.
- Web translationEvery timing value (4–8 frames per second, stepped; instant state changes; 1:1 window movement) and the limit of one looping element in view.
- Web translation · accessibilityNothing flashes more than three times per second; honour prefers-reduced-motion; anything that moves for longer than five seconds can be paused.
Build challenge
Here is a boring modern portfolio. Turn it into Internetcore — without turning it into a costume.
The challenge needs JavaScript. Everything else on this page works without it.
A modern portfolio. Nothing is being quoted yet.
Build with it
A starting grammar for a website that quotes the early web and desktop on purpose: chosen interface primitives (bevels, windows, default links), one palette inherited from the source you quote, and low fidelity only where it has a reason.
Web translation marks our choices for the screen. Not specified by the source marks what the sources leave open. Everything else is a rule from the record below.
The same system is in the brief (Build → Brief) and in the structured data.
colour.txt
- paper
#FFFFFF - ink
#000000 - link
#0000EE - visited
#551A8B - chrome
#C0C0C0 - title
#000080
Browser default: one of four sources, not the palette.
The rules behind it
- Our readingThere is no canonical Internetcore palette. Colour inherits from the digital reference being quoted. From our reading (colour)
- Web translationEvery colour value shown for a palette source is Aesthetary's. The record holds this as its own web translation for the screen, not as a rule of the language. From a web translation (colour)
- Web translationQuote the 216 browser-safe colours only when the page is quoting that constraint. The browser-safe palette existed because most users had 8-bit video in 1996, and it leans saturated; the constraint is the reason to use it. From the work itself (colour), our reading (imagery)
type.txt
Welcome to my page
File saved to Desktop
004211 visits
Serif reads, sans operates, bitmap appears once.
The rules behind it
- Our readingInternetcore does not require a pixel font. The typography must participate in the computing and internet reference. From our reading (typography)
- Our readingDraw on four families of reference: system sans, bitmap or display, monospace, and the browser-default serif. From our reading (typography)
- Our readingA pixel font everywhere is costume. From our reading (typography)
- Web translationGive each family one job: default serif for reading and display, system sans for interface. The record holds this as its own web translation for the screen, not as a rule of the language. From a web translation (typography)
- Web translationNever set body text in a bitmap face below 16px. The record holds this as its own web translation for the screen, not as a rule of the language. From a web translation
- Web translationUse Verdana for the interface. Verdana was made for on-screen display in the source period. From the work itself (typography), a web translation (typography)
layout.txt
Pick one metaphor; do not stack all three.
The rules behind it
- Our readingChoose one structural metaphor, drawn from a source language: Document, Desktop or Portal. From our reading (layout)
- Our readingExpose interface structure. Frames, bars and panels are visible, not hidden. From our reading (layout)
- Web translationThe Document metaphor keeps a narrow measure even on wide screens. The record holds this as its own web translation for the screen, not as a rule of the language. From a web translation (layout)
- Web translationOn narrow screens the Desktop metaphor stops overlapping: windows stack in reading order. The record holds this as its own web translation for the screen, not as a rule of the language. From a web translation (layout)
- Not specified by the sourceThe sources do not specify a grid, gutter or column count. Size from the metaphor; say so if you add a grid.
shape.txt
Radius 0. Depth from 1px bevels.
The rules behind it
- Our readingUse rectangular interface primitives: hard edges, system-window geometry, pixel boundaries, native-control proportions. From our reading (interface)
- Web translationRadius 0 on windows, fields and buttons, unless the quoted source itself rounds a corner. The record holds this as its own web translation for the screen, not as a rule of the language. From a web translation (interface)
- Web translationMake depth from 1px bevels, never blurred shadows. The record holds this as its own web translation for the screen, not as a rule of the language. From a web translation (interface)
image.txt
32 x 32, scaled by whole multiples.
The rules behind it
- Our readingLow fidelity should have a reason. Artefacts applied to everything are a filter, not Internetcore. From our reading (imagery)
- Our readingChoose from six image types: compressed raster, GIF-like animation, bitmap icon, primitive CGI, webcam or personal imagery, scanned image. From our reading (imagery)
- Web translationDraw icons on a 32px grid and scale them by whole multiples. Desktop icons of the source period were monochrome bitmaps on a 32 x 32 grid. From a documented finding (imagery), our reading (imagery)
components.exe
The record documents interface conventions for Internetcore. These four components are contemporary builds on those conventions, not historical artefacts.
The rules behind it
- Web translationMake depth from 1px bevels, light top-left and dark bottom-right, never blurred shadows. The record holds this as its own web translation for the screen, not as a rule of the language. From a web translation (interface)
- Our readingLet controls keep their browser and OS associations. From our reading (interface)
- Web translationUse the states as specified: the bevel recipe, the extra outline on the default action. The record holds this as its own web translation for the screen, not as a rule of the language. From a web translation (interface)
- Our readingLet windows, dialogs and floating elements replace page sections. From our reading
- Our readingLet small modules accumulate instead of becoming giant cards. From our reading (layout)
- Web translationCarry state in the title bar: filled when active, grey when not. Browser and window chrome of the period carried the title and the state; the record lets controls keep those associations. From the work itself (interface), our reading (interface)
- Web translationRadius 0 on windows, fields and buttons. The record holds this as its own web translation for the screen, not as a rule of the language. From a web translation (interface)
- Web translationReal form controls underneath; visible focus on everything. The record holds this as its own web translation for the screen, not as a rule of the language. From a web translation
- Web translationKeep links distinguishable by more than colour: keep the underline. The record holds this as its own web translation for the screen, not as a rule of the language. From a web translation
- Web translationKeep the visited state. Links in period browsers were marked by colour and underlining; visited colour is part of that grammar. From the work itself (interface), our reading (interface)
motion.txt
Stepped, 4–8 frames a second. One loop in view.
The rules behind it
- Our readingDraw from six motions: blink, marquee travel, frame animation, loading and progress, cursor response, window movement. From our reading (motion)
- Our readingReduced motion freezes the animation without removing the digital artefact. From our reading (motion)
- Web translationUse the timing as specified: 4–8 frames per second, stepped; instant state changes; 1:1 window moves. The record holds this as its own web translation for the screen, not as a rule of the language. From a web translation (motion)
- Web translationKeep at most one looping element in view. The period's own critics warned against elements that move incessantly; one loop is a quotation, many are costume. From a documented finding (motion), a web translation (motion)
- Web translationNothing flashes more than three times per second; honour prefers-reduced-motion. The record holds this as its own web translation for the screen, not as a rule of the language. From a web translation
sources.txt
Homepage · Desktop · Browser · Graphics
References that agree with each other.
The rules behind it
- Our readingThe source languages are not a checklist. Internetcore emerges from their deliberate quotation. From our reading
- Our readingThe references must coherently point at internet and computing history, not at one nostalgic prop. From our reading
- Not specified by the sourceA three-dimensional organisation is an open question. Do not build the page as a 3D space and call it Internetcore; the one description of 3D elements is of the ENA sense this record excludes. From a documented finding (form), a documented finding
Sources
Sources, artefacts, documents: what research has found, and the gaps still open.
Coverage
- 115 Claims
- 49 Evidenced
- 0 Artefacts
- 27 Documents
- 0 Images
27 documents stand behind 49 of 115 claims. Those are the findings in 03.2, about the source languages and the revival. The build rules in 02 are Our reading or Web translation; none is upgraded by the findings.
Internetcore has no artefact image recorded yet, and one open question below. That is research debt, and it is shown as debt: a counter reading zero is not a completeness score.
What the research found
Findings from sources: period documents about the web and desktop that were quoted, and accounts of the revival that quotes them. Each keeps its own label. Many describe the source language, not an Internetcore rule; where a finding is scoped, the scope follows it.
- Segmenting the surface into frames stands for the web the way a score display stands for game screens; Lialina calls frames even more recognisable than the classic table layout.
- Professional web designs were produced in Photoshop and later adapted for the browser.
- Susan Kare's first Macintosh letterforms were limited to vertical, horizontal or 45-degree lines, with nine-pixel capitals.
- Web source: HTML left rendering, including type, to the browser.
- Screen-specific TrueType faces (Verdana) were made for on-screen display.
- Desktop icons were monochrome bitmaps drawn on a 32 x 32 grid: trash can, disk, dog-eared document.
- The GIF format supports animation only in a limited way.
- Free collections of web graphics (buttons, bullets, dividers, animations, 'Welcome' headers) were the vernacular web's image stock.
- The contemporary revival is described through the same flashy, neon, blinking, clip-art imagery.
- Two archived GeoCities Heartland homepages (captured 2001) carry visitor counters and guestbook links; one also lists web rings, awards the page has won, and membership of the Internet Link Exchange.
- Cameron's World is a web collage of images and text from GeoCities pages made 1994-2009; Dazed cites it as drawing on GeoCities archives.
- Artist Maria Vorobjova's Digital Folklore Tapestries are made from GeoCities GIFs.
- Revival accounts name harsh, loud website design, clunky animation and pixel art as the look being revived.
- Browser chrome of the period included icon buttons (back, forward, home) and bookmarks. Mosaic was the first published browser to show pictures inline with text.
- Amateur pages duplicated browser controls as their own back/forward buttons.
- The early web's own interface furniture included 'Under Construction' signs, which became a common joke by around 1997.
- Windows 95's interface inherited a desktop, a tray, context menus and a three-dimensional look and feel.
- The Windows 95 taskbar carried a Start button, program entries and a clock, stayed on top of other windows, and gave every task its own entry.
- System-provided Open and Save As dialogs were part of the Windows 95 furniture.
- Early Netscape browser chrome had a title bar showing the page title, a location (URL) field, an animating status indicator and a progress bar.
- Links in the Netscape content area were marked by colour and/or underlining.
- The 216-colour browser-safe palette existed because in 1996 most users had 8-bit (256-colour) video.
- By its publicist's own account the browser-safe palette is heavy on saturated colours and light on muted or tinted ones.
- A GIF palette holds at most 256 colours.
- Early Netscape signalled a transfer with an animating status indicator (the Mosaic Communications logo) and a progress bar that animated to show the progress of the current operation.
- The optional Netscape Looping Application Extension, the most commonly used GIF application extension, sets whether an animated GIF loops forever or a set number of times.
- NN/g's original list of web-design mistakes advised: never include page elements that move incessantly.
- The 2020s revival is described as featuring clunky animations.
- Starry-night backgrounds (black, dark blue or purple, tiled with light static or blinking particles) were a vernacular-web surface; paper, glass, water and wood themes came later.
- An archived GeoCities homepage offers background images for reuse and previews them by number.
- The vernacular web had a shared ornament stock: rainbow dividers, the 'New!' sign, bullets, 'Under Construction' signs.
- Lialina predicted that frames and construction signs would return as retro, stripped of their meaning and contexts.
- Period constraints shaped the look: a starry background could be two colours and about half a kilobyte, MIDI was used because bandwidth was precious, and pages were built in hope of faster connections.
- The amateur web preferred expression over structure.
- The contemporary revival platform (Neocities) hosts static HTML.
- In the source language, expression was preferred over structure.
- The early web is characterised as 'bright, rich, personal, slow and under construction'.
Open question: Does Internetcore have a three-dimensional organisation?
- Know Your Meme describes the aesthetic as using simplistic 3D elements and objects similar to early 3D video-game assets, alongside browser windows and simple colourful graphics.
Two kinds of source, kept apart
This record needs evidence of two different things, and they must never stand in for each other. An old website proves what the source language looked like. It proves nothing about Internetcore, which came later.
Artefacts of the source languages
Historical evidence. Supports claims about what was quoted.
- Kind
- Historical artefact · source language
- Status
- Researched
- Found
- Two archived GeoCities Heartland homepages (Wayback captures, April 2001) show visitor counters and guestbook links; one also has a web-ring list, an awards list and Internet Link Exchange membership. Documented · Source attached
- Would support
- tiled backgrounds, counters, badges, guestbooks, web rings (01.2); the Then specimens (hero, 01.1)
- Kind
- Historical artefact · source language
- Status
- Researched
- Found
- Sullivan's CHI 96 case study documents Windows 95's desktop, tray, context menus, three-dimensional look and feel, taskbar with Start button and clock, and the Open/Save As dialogs. Documented · Source attached
- Would support
- windows, dialogs, icons, system controls (01.2, 02.6)
- Kind
- Historical artefact · source language
- Status
- Researched
- Found
- The Netscape Handbook documents the title bar, location (URL) field, animating status indicator (the Mosaic Communications logo), progress bar, and colour/underline link marking. Seen in the work
- Would support
- address bars, status and loading states (01.2, 01.4)
- Kind
- Historical artefact · source language
- Status
- Researched
- Found
- Partly. GIF palettes were capped at 256 colours, the optional Netscape Looping Extension set whether GIFs looped, and the browser-safe palette limited choices to 216 colours. No quote here documents crude 3D or compression artefacts. Documented · Source attached
- Would support
- bitmap assets, GIF-like motion, crude 3D, compression (02.5)
Sources for the later aesthetic
Sources on the revival and its terminology. Supports claims about Internetcore itself.
- Kind
- Document · later terminology
- Status
- Open question: first use outside the Aesthetics Wiki
- Would support
- the name, the alias, and the claim that this is a distinct aesthetic
- Kind
- Document · later aesthetic
- Status
- Researched
- Found
- Dazed frames the revival as pandemic escapism, and reports that for artist Maria Vorobjova minimalism is tied to corporations that took over the net, so maximalist, lo-res Web 1 subverts it. That supports 'resistance to homogeneous UI' as a reading voiced by one practitioner. Documented · Source attached
- Would support
- the revival as nostalgia, cultural reference and resistance to homogeneous UI (01.5)
- Kind
- Artefact · later aesthetic
- Status
- Researched
- Found
- Partly. Dazed names Cameron's World (a web collage of images and text from GeoCities pages made 1994-2009) and Vorobjova's Digital Folklore Tapestries (woven from GeoCities GIFs), both drawing on GeoCities. No quote here names a work labelled Webcore/Internetcore. Documented · Source attached
- Would support
- the diagnostic test; the boundary with Web 1.0 (01.3); every counterexample (01.7)
- Kind
- Document · historical context
- Status
- Researched
- Found
- Period constraints are documented: the browser-safe chart was published in 1996 when most users had 8-bit video; 10 seconds was the stated maximum response time; GIF palettes capped at 256 colours; frames were judged confusing because they break the web's page model. Documented · Source attached
- Would support
- "the constraints were real" and the Then column of the hero ledger
How this page was made
Open the notes
- Research
- Partly sourced. 27 sources attached.
- Claims
- 115 claims: 40 Documented, 9 Seen in the work, 52 Our reading, 14 Web translation
- Images
- 0 historical; every visual is an Aesthetary specimen, diagram or translation
- Guidance begins
- At layer 02
This page is itself built in the language it describes, at low density: a Document metaphor with windows used as exhibit frames. The windows, the bevels, the default-link blue and the one bitmap face are this page's art direction — a decision of ours, not an Internetcore rule, and not something the Build downloads carry.
Where the page breaks its own guidance: the hero specimen and the motion demonstrations in 02.7 run several loops at once, which 02.7 limits to one per view. They are demonstrations; the Reduce motion control in 02.7 freezes every loop on the page.
Differences not yet researched: the boundaries with Vaporwave and Neo-Brutalism are stated from the manuscript, not from compared artefacts. We would rather say so than draw a comparison nobody has made.
Inspect the record
- Research view — every claim and what backs it
- Web 1.0 — the source language, on its own page
- Mix — see where its rules collide with another Aesthetic's
- Structured data — the record as an agent receives it
- Brief.md — the rules, generated from the record
- Put it on the Mix bench — see where its rules collide with another Aesthetic’s
- Suggest a correction — or request deeper research
- Suggest a source — in the discussion below
- All Aesthetics
Why we say this — Identity
Internetcore is a contemporary aesthetic that deliberately reconstructs and remixes the visual language of early personal computing and the web.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- gestalt (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
- Would be backed by
- Where the terms Internetcore and Webcore were first used (not researched yet)
Why we say this — How you recognise it
The diagnostic question: does the design intentionally aestheticize the visual language of obsolete computing or the early internet? Intent decides; age alone does not.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- gestalt (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — What it is
Internetcore treats obsolete digital interfaces as visual culture, borrowing from early websites, desktop operating systems, primitive browser interfaces and the vernacular graphics of the consumer internet.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- gestalt (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Intent, not appearance
Internetcore is distinguished from old web design by intent, not by appearance: early sites looked the way they did because they had to; Internetcore recreates, exaggerates and recombines those conventions after the limits have gone.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- gestalt (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Source material
The source languages are not a checklist. Internetcore emerges from their deliberate quotation and recombination.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- gestalt (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Personal homepage
Tiled backgrounds; counters; badges; guestbooks; web rings; underlined links.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- gestalt (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Desktop UI
Windows; menus; dialogs; icons; folders; system controls.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- gestalt (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Browser
Chrome; address bars; status indicators; tabs and windows; loading states.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- gestalt (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Primitive digital graphics
Pixels; GIF-like motion; bitmap assets; crude 3D; compressed imagery.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- gestalt (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Browser chrome
Interface becomes graphic material.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- gestalt (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Pixel and bitmap language
Digital resolution can remain visibly discrete.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- gestalt (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Default-looking UI
Links, inputs, buttons and system controls may retain browser and OS associations.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- gestalt (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Layering
Windows, dialogs and floating interface elements can replace conventional page sections.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- gestalt (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Deliberate technical naïveté
Elements may appear primitive while being technically sophisticated underneath.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- gestalt (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Digital ornament
Badges, icons, cursors, separators, counters and tiny animations can function decoratively.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- gestalt (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — What it is not
The visual language has to coherently reference internet and computing history, rather than using one nostalgic prop.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- gestalt (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — A break, not a continuation
Internetcore did not continue uninterrupted from the early web. Its retrospective quality is part of its identity.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- history (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — 1980s
Personal computing establishes the desktop-interface vernacular.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- history (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — 1990s
The public web develops its own visual conventions under severe technical constraints.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- history (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Late 1990s–2000s
Personal homepages, portals, forums and increasingly sophisticated browser experiences diversify web culture.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- history (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Later web
Standardisation and professionalisation make many early conventions disappear.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- history (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Contemporary revival
Designers deliberately recover obsolete interface languages — as nostalgia, as cultural reference, and as resistance to homogeneous contemporary UI.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- history (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Web 1.0 boundary
Web 1.0 is historical evidence: its constraints were real. Internetcore is a later interpretation in which the constraints are quoted.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- boundary (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Y2K
Broader millennium-era futurism and consumer culture — not specifically about the internet itself.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- boundary (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Pixel art
A rendering technique that can appear inside many aesthetics. On its own it classifies nothing.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- boundary (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Anti-Design
Challenges conventional design norms. It need not reference obsolete computing at all.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- boundary (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Vaporwave
Nostalgia filtered through consumer and media culture, with its own music and art lineage.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- boundary (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Neo-Brutalism
Contemporary rawness and visible structure, without requiring internet nostalgia.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- boundary (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Our reading
Expose interface structure. Frames, bars and panels are visible, not hidden.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- layout, Core · Specified (proposed)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Our reading
Let hierarchy feel digital rather than editorial.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- layout, Core · Specified (proposed)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Our reading
Small modules can accumulate instead of becoming giant contemporary cards.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- layout, Core · Specified (proposed)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Our reading
Layering is legitimate when the desktop metaphor supports it.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- layout, Core · Specified (proposed)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Our reading
Imperfection should look intentional.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- layout, Core · Specified (proposed)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Three metaphors
Three structural metaphors, each drawn from a source language: Document, Desktop, Portal.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- layout, Core · Specified (proposed)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Web translation
On narrow screens the Desktop metaphor stops overlapping: windows stack in reading order, each keeping its title bar. Overlap that hides content on a phone is not a quotation, it is a bug.
- Kind of claim
- Web translation — How Aesthetary applies the language on screen; not something the aesthetic itself specified
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- layout, Core · Specified (proposed)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Web translation
The Document metaphor keeps a narrow measure even on wide screens — the narrow column survives as a chosen width, not a table limit.
- Kind of claim
- Web translation — How Aesthetary applies the language on screen; not something the aesthetic itself specified
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- layout, Core · Specified (proposed)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Typography
Internetcore does not require a pixel font. The typography must participate in the computing and internet reference.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- typography, Core · Specified (proposed)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Our reading
Four families of reference: system sans, bitmap or display, monospace, and the browser-default serif.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- typography, Core · Specified (proposed)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Our reading
A pixel font everywhere is costume.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- typography, Core · Specified (proposed)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Web translation
Give each family one job: default serif for reading and display, system sans for interface, bitmap only where resolution is the subject (counters, status, specimens).
- Kind of claim
- Web translation — How Aesthetary applies the language on screen; not something the aesthetic itself specified
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- typography, Core · Specified (proposed)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Web translation
Body text never in a bitmap face below 16px; bitmap faces render unevenly when scaled off their grid.
- Kind of claim
- Web translation — How Aesthetary applies the language on screen; not something the aesthetic itself specified
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- accessibility (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Colour
There is no canonical Internetcore palette. Colour inherits from the digital reference being quoted: browser default, desktop UI, personal homepage, or a reduced contemporary reinterpretation.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- color, Core · Specified (proposed)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Web translation
Every colour value shown for a palette source is Aesthetary's; the saturated homepage set is adjusted so text on its grounds passes 4.5:1.
- Kind of claim
- Web translation — How Aesthetary applies the language on screen; not something the aesthetic itself specified
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- color, Core · Specified (proposed)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Web translation
Links stay distinguishable by more than colour — keep the underline.
- Kind of claim
- Web translation — How Aesthetary applies the language on screen; not something the aesthetic itself specified
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- accessibility (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Shape
Rectangular interface primitives: hard edges, system-window geometry, pixel boundaries, native-control proportions. Rounded corners are not forbidden; they become suspicious when the interface reads as generic contemporary SaaS rather than obsolete computing.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- interface, Core · Specified (proposed)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Web translation
Radius 0 on windows, fields and buttons. Where the quoted source itself rounds a corner, round only that element, and only to that degree.
- Kind of claim
- Web translation — How Aesthetary applies the language on screen; not something the aesthetic itself specified
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- interface, Core · Specified (proposed)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Web translation
Depth comes from 1px bevels (light top-left, dark bottom-right), never from blurred shadows.
- Kind of claim
- Web translation — How Aesthetary applies the language on screen; not something the aesthetic itself specified
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- interface, Core · Specified (proposed)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Our reading
Default-looking controls may retain browser and OS associations; windows, dialogs and floating elements can replace page sections.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- interface, Core · Specified (proposed)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Interface
Historical Internetcore sources do not establish a canonical contemporary component library. The components shown are contemporary translations of the visual rules.
- Kind of claim
- Web translation — How Aesthetary applies the language on screen; not something the aesthetic itself specified
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- interface, Core · Specified (proposed)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Web translation
Every state, value and behaviour of the components shown: the bevel recipe, the extra outline on the default action, the sunken current-page marker and the block progress bar are Aesthetary's reconstruction.
- Kind of claim
- Web translation — How Aesthetary applies the language on screen; not something the aesthetic itself specified
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- interface, Core · Specified (proposed)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Web translation
Real form controls underneath; visible focus on everything; touch targets at least 32px tall; dialogs trap focus and close on Escape.
- Kind of claim
- Web translation — How Aesthetary applies the language on screen; not something the aesthetic itself specified
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- accessibility (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Imagery
Low fidelity should have a reason. Artefacts applied to everything are a filter, not Internetcore.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- imagery, Supporting · Specified (proposed)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Our reading
Six image types: compressed raster, GIF-like animation, bitmap icon, primitive CGI, webcam or personal imagery, scanned image.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- imagery, Supporting · Specified (proposed)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Our reading
A six-part motion vocabulary — blink, marquee travel, frame animation, loading and progress, cursor response, window movement — each either a historical behaviour or a contemporary recreation.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- motion, Supporting · Specified (proposed)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Our reading
Reduced motion should freeze the animation without removing the digital artefact that communicates the aesthetic.
- Kind of claim
- Our reading — Aesthetary's conclusion from the material; no single source says it
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- motion, Supporting · Specified (proposed)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Web translation
Every timing value (4–8 frames per second, stepped; instant state changes; 1:1 window movement) and the limit of one looping element in view.
- Kind of claim
- Web translation — How Aesthetary applies the language on screen; not something the aesthetic itself specified
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- motion, Supporting · Specified (proposed)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Why we say this — Web translation
Nothing flashes more than three times per second; honour prefers-reduced-motion; anything that moves for longer than five seconds can be paused.
- Kind of claim
- Web translation — How Aesthetary applies the language on screen; not something the aesthetic itself specified
- Strength
- Untiered — The research supports the rule but sets no tier for it; none assigned
- Area
- accessibility (cross-cutting)
- Sources
- None attached
- Evidence
- None — research debt
Contribute
Contributing and commenting need JavaScript. Nothing else on this page does.
Work made in this style: a poster, a page, a type setting. Every submission is reviewed before it appears.
Nothing here yet.
Comments
No comments yet.