[0] https://mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx?action=a%3alocalcafe.or...
I'm just surprised we haven't seem some app that can act like a wordpress admin page but generating a static output you can host for free or very cheap somewhere.
It really feels like the only part of a non-static site most want is an editor. I absolutely loathe the matter but I do see why some restaurants only maintain a facebook page for their online presence.
Netlify does way more than this, but it makes hosting static stuff super easy.
NextJS + Git + Vercel.
Basically you'll be able to edit the markdown for your site in a souped up version of our lightly reskinned vscode IDE at https://brilliant.mplode.dev and instantly publish/preview the changes in the same browser tab in a pane. Brilliant comes with a full Linux environment running in a container on our cloud platform, and building a Statue static site is already a one-command operation. The little UI we're working on let's nontechnical people skip that and just edit files and click buttons to make changes and publish it, though.
Here's a one-liner that will get you an entire static site with content (not the landing page yet, though) you can edit via markdown:
yes | npx sv create . --template minimal --types ts --no-add-ons --install npm && npm install statue-ssg && npx statue init && npm install && npm run dev
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44391535
(I'm not affiliated with it)
I'm just surprised there is nothing that fills the gap between github pages and a full hosted solution with a ton of junk you don't need. All it really needs is maybe a locally running app that can handle generating the static pages and uploading them for you.
I'm a developer (so I prefer Astro and all) but was thinking of the barrier of entry for creating new websites is very low now.
These days you can buy paid software to do this:
- $110 https://blocsapp.com
- $90 https://realmacsoftware.com/rapidweaver-classic/
- $80 https://sitely.app
- $30 https://bootstrapstudio.io
- $0 https://www.silex.me
- $0 https://wordpress.org/plugins/simply-static/
- $0 until recently, https://web.archive.org/web/20240410200646/https://grapesjs....
RapidWeaver Classic calls itself a subscription and sets up autopay, but you can immediately cancel and keep that version forever, like Jetbrains.
It's a lot.
haven't used it, but looks like a great idea!
For non-technical people I'd recommend the Hostinger Website Builder, Obsidian Quartz or Astro Starlight.
Although as a front-end dev I'd choose building a custom page with Astro, which has now become much easier though with good templates available + LLM assistance.
I wrote a comparison of less-technical ways to build a website here with more details: https://webdev.bryanhogan.com/start/ways-to-build/
I set it up for my brother to run his static blog, and it's quite good if you like that kind of thing. There are some quirks where it gets confused if you rename mycoolarticle.md, so I still prefer using notepad++ and git and CLI for mine.
Two examples I've briefly worked with:
Decap CMS (formerly Netlify CMS): https://decapcms.org/
Lume CMS: https://lume.land/cms/
First, the site generator is MIT licensed but I don't see a link to the license. If someone forks this generator, would they be in compliance with MIT license requirements?
Second, the images linked in this site are quite nice. I can imagine someone choosing to use some of them as is. Are they yours to share?
Third, it appears that you are targeting non-developers. I would think about how to make it as easy as possible to customize. Decisions like putting images in "priv/output/images" seems a bit confusing.
Second: pixabay
Third: Yeah that's the challenge I'm working on at the moment. Thanks for the feed back.
I do plan on cleaning up the repo so that you are not starting with the example and also plan on making a small tutorial video to show how much effort it takes to setup.
I used elixir because thats what I know and love so it was mostly just a personal choice rather than a technical one.
We assume people are so stupid, its not they are stupid, they have to learn wordpress admin, square space's admin, wixx, they all have a learning curve. The issue is time and effort. If the process is simple even if not elegant its still simple.
In my case you are logging into github and navigating to a folder vs an admin and navigating to a specific section. Editing file directly in github vs hitting save on some form and site deploys via github actions without any other need. If anything my system offers version control baked in with about the same level of effort.
davisr•2mo ago
stronglikedan•2mo ago
dugmartin•2mo ago
- https://astro.build/themes/details/astropie/
- https://astro.build/themes/details/astrorante/
- https://astro.build/themes/details/tastyyy-restaurant-websit...
adzm•2mo ago
bryanhogan•2mo ago
riveralabs•2mo ago
burningChrome•2mo ago
Netlify is a great company that I'll always support.
hunter2_•2mo ago
The only benefit I can think of is if it leads to more frequent updates by the restaurant, due to limited skillset.
neuroelectron•2mo ago
ok123456•2mo ago
The trade-off is that they'll have to pinch/zoom if they have a small display. It's a minor inconvenience to make the exact information they want available instantly.
vector_spaces•2mo ago
hyperhello•2mo ago
ok123456•2mo ago
The horrible Wix sites most restaurants end up using are likely less accessible than a PDF. The Adobe PDF reader can reflow text.
> also sucks for people on crappy mobile networks
The average wysiwyg site builder produces bundles that are an order of magnitude larger than a PDF menu. Also, the PDF is easier to cache correctly and can be easily saved for offline access.
mpweiher•2mo ago
Curious, I haven't tried it.
pastel8739•2mo ago
foogazi•2mo ago
You can put ads into terribly formatted PDFs too
saghm•2mo ago
IAmBroom•2mo ago
No one does either of those, IRL.
parpfish•2mo ago
cess11•2mo ago
mvdtnz•2mo ago
spartanatreyu•2mo ago
Making a website's basic functionality work without JS isn't just for the random users who switch off their browser's JS runtime.
It's also for the people who have a random network dropout or slowdown on a random file (in this case a JS file).
handoflixue•2mo ago
Does that really apply when the javascript is only ~2kb?
spartanatreyu•2mo ago
That is what's happening any time you've seen a website that randomly decides to load without styles, or with a missing image.
The good thing is that it's very apparent when that happens and you can just reload the page.
But it's not immediately obvious when it happens with a JS file.
That's half the reason why you shouldn't re-implement css features in a js file. (the other half is performance)
justsomehnguy•2mo ago
> the javascript is only ~2kb?
It can be even 200Mb if it's not loaded properly and now a website doesn't even function.
lmm•2mo ago
spartanatreyu•2mo ago
When CSS doesn't load, it's immediately apparent and the user knows they need to reload the page.
lmm•2mo ago
spartanatreyu•2mo ago
It doesn't have anything to do with progressive enhancement.
lmm•2mo ago
You're saying that when the enhancement doesn't work, it's desirable that "it's immediately apparent and the user knows they need to reload the page". That's the opposite of what progressive enhancement people normally argue for.
lmm•2mo ago
fullstacking•2mo ago
Groxx•2mo ago
hunter2_•2mo ago
Groxx•2mo ago
hunter2_•2mo ago
[0] https://github.com/Local-Cafe/localcafe-lite?tab=readme-ov-f...
pimlottc•2mo ago
ErroneousBosh•2mo ago
It's not even about blind people. People with ADHD or dyslexia use assistive technology, which frequently makes an absolute horlicks of interpreting PDF. It's one of the reasons I'm trying to move a lot of documentation at work away from PDF and onto just straight HTML.
Plain old HTML, with thin CSS on it to make it not be black-and-white Times New Roman. Kicking it oldschool.
nottorp•2mo ago
Wait for 2 more iOS redesigns and everyone will use assistive technology on Apple devices :)
victorbjorklund•2mo ago
AlotOfReading•2mo ago
refactor_master•2mo ago
Using an LLM to translate the visible part of a PDF on a mobile... seems like the worst possible solution to the problem.
noosphr•2mo ago
jmyeet•2mo ago
For example: if there's a dish name with a 2 line description below it and some allergy symbols below that, in HTML you can imagine the document structure that produces that. In PDF terms that might be 4 separate objects and, in particular, the eyes can see the two lines are adjacent so they fit together but the document structure doesn't really represent it taht way, necessarily.
This might also not work with translation because the lines are set for the size of the text they contain. Same for resizing the font.
Put another waay, PDF should be viewed as a typeset and layout format, not a document format.
AlotOfReading•2mo ago
victorbjorklund•2mo ago
venturecruelty•2mo ago
andai•2mo ago
BrenBarn•2mo ago
lioeters•2mo ago
ale42•2mo ago
pif•2mo ago
IAmBroom•2mo ago
samdoesnothing•2mo ago
Actually, nobody should need an XML parser to see the soups either.
glxxyz•2mo ago
yieldcrv•2mo ago
foresto•2mo ago
hunter2_•2mo ago
fullstacking•2mo ago
/s
DoctorOW•2mo ago
ThomasMidgley•2mo ago
In my area most restaurants have no website.
If they have a website it's often very hard to find their opening hours. Under 'contact'? Nope! At the footer? Nay! Maybe somewhere hidden in the menu PDF? With luck... Outside their homepage at google maps? Maybe. On their Tripadvisor page? Hahaha! Funny! Not.
ChrisRR•2mo ago