Two discoveries:
1, Paul Graham written paulgraham.com website program by himself, with an interface that looks ancient in retrospect because it's from 1996.
2, all posts on paulgraham.com are (almost) devoid of any accompanying images.
Some thoughts
Is it important for a blog site to have a good looking interface? paulgraham.com tells me that when your content is good enough, it doesn't matter what the interface looks like (but it doesn't interfere with reading).
Also I don't think paulgraham.com's interface is 'ugly', I think it's minimalist and era specific.
It seems to have become standard practice in the creation of online textual content, and in recent years more and more authors have been using AI-generated images for both the cover and body of their articles. Are graphics necessary for an article? Have we been too hasty and too prolific in our use of graphics? It's worth thinking about this question.
Of course, I'm not saying that blog posts shouldn't have images,there are times when images can be effective in conveying more information. Still, it's a question of whether it's too hasty and too pervasive.
I also think that text, or plain text, is more likely to travel through time due to its own characteristics (very small bit, very compatibility).
And more thought: are the images in this post necessary? Without it, would it have an impact on the reader's understanding of this article?
