And yet the copyright reads 2010. This implies Ted went to update the header in January, looked over the site, and said, "Yep, this looks good."<p>The first hit in the Wayback Machine is from 2003.<p><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20030416071159/http://www.cvilleok.com/tedfrm1.html" rel="nofollow">http://web.archive.org/web/20030416071159/http://www.cvilleo...</a><p>Typical amateur site design. He didn't adopt the "blizzard of tables" design until 2006.<p><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20060511052754/http://www.cvilleok.com/tedfrm1.html" rel="nofollow">http://web.archive.org/web/20060511052754/http://www.cvilleo...</a>
once they got adapted to reading and maintaining
their site, it may really be a burden to change it to something else without promise of significant gain. What they would gain by changing it to another design style?<p>For users: Readability? hardly because they have already adapted to current design.<p>For author: Ease of maintenance? highly questionable.
i wonder why it hasnt been overhauled. amazing to think there used to be an abundance of cluttered websites like these. reminds me of aol and yahoo.<p>certainly has a little bit of nostalgia factor.
also reminds me of the geocities-izer @ <a href="http://wonder-tonic.com/geocitiesizer/" rel="nofollow">http://wonder-tonic.com/geocitiesizer/</a>