A Small Collection of Text-Only Websites
Key topics
The nostalgia is palpable as folks gather to share and celebrate text-only websites, with some even digging up lightweight alternatives like NPR's text.npr.org and CNN's lite.cnn.com. As commenters reminisce about the good old days of printer-friendly web pages, a few tech-savvy individuals reveal they've created their own stripped-down versions, like a custom NYT ASCII frontpage site. The discussion highlights a growing frustration with modern websites' emphasis on video and clutter, with some lamenting the shift away from straightforward news delivery. Amidst the nostalgia, developers share practical tips on how to create simple, text-based versions of their own websites.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
33m
Peak period
49
0-12h
Avg / period
15
Based on 60 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Jan 2, 2026 at 6:06 AM EST
7 days ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Jan 2, 2026 at 6:39 AM EST
33m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
49 comments in 0-12h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Jan 6, 2026 at 3:28 PM EST
3d ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
Not technically plaintext, but still very lightweight, especially when compared to a typical news site.
https://lite.cnn.com/
https://www.cbc.ca/lite
Thanks for putting together this list, it would be nice to add a short summary next to each link.
(I've argued and lost that fight, more often than won it.)
To me the "happy path" is the one the user would naturally take, without needing to learn the quirks of each site.
[0] https://help.salesforce.com/s/articleView?id=ind.sf_contract...
https://web.archive.org/web/20020329105739/http://berkshireh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_(protocol)
I never knew Google invented the Zodiac.
Interesting to see how the original creator of Markdown uses it.
I'm presuming that's the version he edits and not output automatically converted from an intermediary representation.
This should be the version Gruber edits in MarsEdit or BBEdit, but it maybe partly rendered by the Moveable Type CMS
The extension is ‘.text’ because that is what he suggested as the Markdown extension, but of course most of us went with ‘.md’
While keyword tags are not used on the website, you can see the one he uses for his personal purposes at the bottom of the Markdown
To me, having only text as the output with no ads, videos, or images is “text-only”. It doesn’t matter how it’s presented as long as it’s just text.
But I also see your perspective. You want plain defaults with white background color, black foreground color, and no formatting.
> The rules are simple - content which has the MIME type of text/plain. No HTML, no multimedia, no RTF, no XML, no ANSI colour escape sequences.
Your definition is fine for you, but it’s not what TFA is about.
<!DOCTYPE HTML><plaintext>
And then all the other pages of the site to be pure *.txt files. In the end, until there are standards to point to, I just accept minimalism as the scale. I have ads, layouts, boxes / frames, and all sorts of possibly annoying aspects to my textsites. It is a medium that's just as easily abused as any!
For most SSG (Static site generators) I’ve seen that take a plain text to html conversion, they usually only serve up .html
Wondering out loud if this would be a useful and desirable addition for SSG tools to have the option to serve up say .html and a .md (or .txt or whatever).
Am I missing something? Be a good idea/feature yeah?
The only thing you might be missing: I don't think it helps many people really.
I personally still like the feature because I put my website under a free software license and then it is only fitting that you could view the actual source code. Having the `.md` next to the `.xhtml` available helps to achieve this.
If your browser is rendering plaintext documents in a way that's unreadable, that's a failure of your web browser to serve as an effective user agent for your needs.
(People shoot down the analogous argument for changing the base formatting of text/html, because changing the base UA styles would throw brittle old stylesheets out of whack. But plaintext doesn't have stylesheets that could be thrown out-of-whack.)
It's clearly intentional, but I just can't think of a reason to intentionally make your website this unusable?
Mine defaulted to drunk for some reason and it's so horrible I didn't even realise I could change it!
Chrome in android
This feels more "pure" to me, but it also means that you couldn't actually use it from a typical web browser. So it'd be utterly pointless, but then again, so is my blog.
I have a few WIP books where Markdown is my source format for similar reasons. I then use pandoc to render to txt, html, pdf, doc or epub as desired.
For my textsites, I use the whole address, e.g., http://ynac.freeshell.org/Yuengling.txt and will often repeat the instruction to right-click on any link to follow. That way, navigation is strong and layout just that much more challenging.
".txt" is also a good idea for content-heavy pages. Maybe ".md" too? I may try.
We've hardly scratched the surface here.
(Now I want to make a TUI site.)
This redesign is only a few weeks old. Previously, only the homepage of my blog was HTML/CSS, the posts were all text files by default. Most (all?) people were frustrated with the mobile experience but I loved it. I only redesigned because I wanted to see images on my blog again. You can see the previous version in the 2025 branch[2] of my repo.
---
[1]: https://blog.webb.page
[2]: https://github.com/NetOpWibby/blog/tree/2025
Anyway, i'd like to mention the no HTML club: https://no-html.club/index.txt
Also self plug: https://txt.basilikum.monster You can also get the text version from basilkum.monster directly by sending the appropriate accept header.
URLs are text. Anchor tags are text. The "link" part is a function of the content viewer. text/plain just happens to not trigger that function in most browsers, but there's no guarantee it won't. If I paste that plain text into an email, it's likely my client or the the receiver's is going to "linkify" it.