2016 was a total mistake. Let's just revert, and then wait for 2020-LTS.
Argh, I blame an unfamiliar keyboard. And being half-asleep. Sigh
It's clean, very simple and renders fine in everything, even mobile. No distracting content, proper font and font spacing.
This would probably fail a basic Universal Accessibility test based on that alone.
Granted, the current trend to make everything feel like a shitty JavaScript application would be taking it too far, but lwn.net is definitely not a pleasure to read. Yes, it displays "just fine" in links, lynx, elinks, etc., if your definition of "just fine" is Fefe's Blog.
Hey, fefe has some pretty nice stylesheets for his blog
https://blog.fefe.de/?css=darkgreen.css
https://blog.fefe.de/?css=cold_blue.css
https://blog.fefe.de/?css=ascii.css
https://blog.fefe.de/?css=topaz.css
https://blog.fefe.de/?css=janvsfefe.css
This is how it looks if you visit the site without a CSS cookie.
Say what? On the contrary, I think that it's splendidly simple to read LWN, because there's no distraction. It's a good, clean site; it respects the styling I instruct my browser to apply to it; it displays just fine in links, lynx, elinks, ewww, emacs-w3m, Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Internet Explorer, Edge — if that's not professional, then what is?
The HTML is very clean and readable. They do use CSS.
Granted, it doesn't look trendy. Indeed, it looks like something from the 90s/00s. But once one updates to a20`6 style, one then has to spend money in 2017, 2018, spring 2019, summer 2019, fall 2019, winter 2019, January 2020, February 2020 — one will be paying designers and artists until the end of time.
Would I appreciate a somewhat more current look? Sure. Would I trade good HTML and universal readability for a more current look? Hell no.