I feel like there's an in-between we're not talking about, that would look a bit less like a shareware site from the early 00s, used more than 30% of my screen, and would work on my phone, but isn't the modern mess of megabytes of JS bundles for a static landing page. It could load in 35-50ms, too, I wouldn't mind.

"Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but nothing left to take away."

I value negative space in the same way that my dream is not to pile my plate with as much as I can at a buffet.

That's nice, but I value text that renders at a legible size more than I value leaving the majority of my screen empty. This layout isn't effectively using negative space, it's just wasting the entire screen. At least on mobile.

On mobile I just use two thumbs to zoom in to the column I want to read.

Blatant ableism against the mono-thumbed or thumbless.

The mono-thumbed can always double-tap the desired column, and thumbless folx can use their nose.

If only we had simple CSS rules to present things in a way that doesn't require one to do this

ᵀʰᵃᵗ’ˢ ʷʰʸ ᴵ ᵐᵃᵏᵉ ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵉⁿᵗˢ ˢᵐᵃˡˡᵉʳ ᵒⁿ ᵖᵘʳᵖᵒˢᵉ

How did you do that?

Unicode tricks. A quick Google search for "small text generator" will point you in the right direction.

Ḩ̸̻̹̝̯̮̖͚͔̙̙̰̞̳̩͎̻̅͛͆̌͑̈͗͐͆̀̇̈͋͜î̴̡̺̬͚̠̻̺̮̤̥̟̜͗͐͋͌̄̈͂̽̒́́̋͜͠͠s̵̻̗̰̒̈̿͌̅͗̽̈́͝ ̶̱̣̗͍̬̲̘̣͍̥̟̦̫̬́̈͗͂̾̍̉͊̌̚ͅą̸̤̤̳̺̹͆̆̍̾̌̿̅̽͌̔̿̒̎̂̉̈́͐̚͝ȑ̷͉̄̏́̔̒́̇̈́̑͆̀͌̎̌̆̕͝r̷̗̮͙̱̹̣̤͚͐͐̕į̷̨̡̡̛̛̹̱̹̹̺̬͔̬͇̎́͑̈͒̈́͌͛̐͂́̈́̚͜͝v̸̡̢̛̼̝̜̞̜͕̫̳̣̰̺̮͈̗̞̦̰̰͇͊̅̏͆̄̊͒͑̂̈́̉͛͋͛͘̕a̴̭̱̒l̵͖̗̳̪̯̣̗͋̋͋̑̎̌̌̓͆͒̑̆͐͊͝͝͝͠ ̶̹̫̪͓͈̘̳̈͜ͅw̵̬̪͖̭̲̪͝ͅạ̴̛̞͙͉̀́́̐͌̅͗͆̃̀͆̒̄̈́́̚ṡ̵̯͕́̓̈́͆̈̈͆̀͆ ̵̮̪̪̹̻̓̊̏̀̂̽̓̈́̄̏̅̊̊̎̂̚͘̚͠f̸͍͎͇̺̪̩̯̾ͅo̴̟̬͙͈̮͔̿̈́̈̑͊̀̽̎̕r̵̛͎̳̻̜̦̺̥̦̞͐͌̽́̔̈͌̂̀͛͌̓̉̔͋̆̏͊͘͝ţ̵̧̢̧̻̻̺͎͙̠͈̩̪̥͇̥̮̿̇̏̍̉̀̉͒͐̌̔̈́́̚̕͠o̶͖̤̜̟̱̖͓͍̖̲̮̮̫͎̜̫͕̖̼̕̕l̴̢̺͍̾̒̄̈͘ḏ̷̛̗͖̝͚͕͕̬̖̱̬̗̳̘̪̠̹͛̋̀̄̇̌͆̒̄̇̀̑͝ͅͅͅ.̴̨̨̢̦̜͕̞̬͍̹̟̩͖̥̗̹͉̼̹̊̎̓̒̏̋͜ ̸̡̼̝̥͔̯̠̤̰̘̙̗͓̫̦͙̎̈́̓͊̑̒̅H̷̡̻̖͍̜̞̥͓̩͈͓̿̓̋͠ͅë̸̹̠̗̼̂̀̋̃̑̓̓̇̚ ̷̧̡̛͈̮̞̙̳͂̍̔̽̑́̋̀̐̈́̾͌̅̎̂̔̿̚͝ͅc̵̥̗̲̬͓͈͕̘̱͖̜̭̖̱̳̏̎̎̀͊̎̾͊̊̑͘͜ȏ̵̲̖̼̘͔͚̰͍̜͔͚͘͝ͅͅm̶̢̝̬̹͉̞̩̗͛̓̅̎͊̌̕͘̚͠ȩ̷̯̦̫̤̲̞͒͒̒́̌̓̒̍̎͠s̴̡̧̢̱͔͈͈̩̖̥̖̻̻̣̗̭̣̞̥̝̤̮̖͛̽̈̌̎̇.̴̝̗͖̗͙̦̱̀͛̃͑̓̀̀͑͊̂̂̿̽̀̐͂́͘͘ ̶̡̢̟̼̻̣̠͓͕̦̲̗̩̹̔͆̒͝ͅ

You're free to call that "negative space", it's still 70% of my screen that's just blinding white, and 30% that's a tiny, non-responsive column layout. You call it perfect, I call it annoyingly empty and bad usability on mobile.

A lot of sites from https://512kb.club/ are like that.

Why does it need to take up more than 30% of your screen? And what's wrong with your phone? It works perfectly fine on mine.

Legibility and usability. Like many old sites this one uses small fonts, small elements, and has tiny targets. Especially when working on a large display. I make liberal use of Firefox's zoom feature to compensate, but better defaults don't hurt.

And yes it works on a phone as you can easily zoom in, but inclusion of responsive design, e.g. moving the sidebar to a footer, and use larger fonts would significantly improve legibility and usability. This is not incompatible with a simple and fast-loading site.

I guess we have very different definitions of "works perfectly". Sure, the page displays as intended, if that's what you mean. Tiny 3 pixel high links are neither accessible nor very usable.

If you are looking for Pegasus mail on a mobile device, I think you might be a wee bit outside of the target market. And btw, Pegasus is a shareware site from the 1990s.

Why do you make the assumption that people running, or interested in running Pegasus, would not read things on their phone?

This. It's refreshing to use a website that doesn't need to run an obscene amount of JS everywhere.

I wish it had some screenshots though, which would slightly increase time to onload, although it shouldn't delay loading of the text content.

Here you go:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pegasus+mail+screen+captures&iax=i...

Exactly. Wish more sites and other bits of software followed this website's philosophy. Once you have that which is sufficient, anything more is waste.

unreadable on mobile is not sufficient

Desktop software. Also it's not unreadable.

Ah the old nerds pretending UI just doesn't matter.

I think that's an unfair strawman, because they are saying that UI does matter, only that their opinion of "modern UIs" is that they are often worse, not better.

Someone mentioned an "in between" option and that's where I personally tend to land as well. A lot of modern websites are so media and JavaScript heavy that they take a long time to load, have many layout shifts and feel sluggish when you use and navigate them. That is not good user experience.

On the flip side, I think there is a lot to say for "responsiveness", font choices and media that helps the user experience. I am a minimalist, but legibility of copy and making intelligent layout decisions relative to the viewport size are "modern" techniques that can greatly aid UX when understood and applied properly.

I don't know what you're talking about. That's a beautiful, clean, and clearly-organized site.

UI matters, that's why we're praising it.

UI matters, and modern UIs are horrible

I believe you. Many older ones are better, especially if the documentation is sufficient.

Welp we're not going back so. Get right or get left. They're great for me.

This is peak performance.

But...tables!!!

While I did use it maybe 25 years ago, I wanted to see some screenshots to get reminded of what it looks like. No screenshots. Maybe the manual? No pdf to download.

The site leaves a lot to be desired, but it loads fast.

Exactly what I tried to do. Then just fall back to duckduckgo: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=pegasus+mail&iax=images&ia=...

I believe that's how the author earns a living: the software is free (and has online help), but the manual costs money.

Oh, ok, I thought it was bundled with the download.

I went looking into this a bit and TBH I think I'm out of date.

I think he sold printed dead-tree manuals.

Now PDFs are bundled:

https://www.pmail.com/manuals.htm