introduction

If you surf the modern "small web" to any extent you've encountered 88x31 buttons - a staple of late 90s and early 2000's websites¹ undergoing a bit of a revival. The Neocities community especially seems to have truly embraced them. 88x31 buttons have a long history on the web, straddling the worlds of advertising and the personal web. Much like IRL jacket pins and buttons - they're small, colorful, collectible, easy to make and trade, and at a glance can confer just enough information to characterize the website displaying them.

Some examples of sites sharing some thematic elements spanning over 25 years:
Dann's Page
Bill's World
Paintkiller's links page
Solaria's Webspace
Ellie's Magical Website
ByteMoth's Perfectly Cooked Pages

They all feature 88x31 buttons in some capacity and those buttons reflect the website and it's designer in some way.

Despite their persistence into the 2020's (or maybe because of it), there seems to be some debate on the origin of the 88x31 format - some point to early Geocities websites, others Netscape's infamously ubiquitous "Now" buttons. Neonaut's 88x31 page compares the 1996 Geocities.com and Netscape.com snapshots on the Wayback Machine to draw that conclusion. However, the snapshot shows a button advertising the new 3.0 release². But the "now" button goes back earlier.

when did the 88x31 emerge?

The Version Museum list of Netscape screenshots has an image of Navigator version 1.2 (probably 1.22) dated from 1995 showing the Netscape homepage and the earliest instance of the 'Netscape Now' button which had no version number (Netscape 1.22 was released in 1995). Screenshots of the Netscape site from 1994³ do not show any 88x31 buttons.

The earliest version of the GeoCities homepage I can find is on Web Design Museum and dates from 1995. It doesn't show any 88x31 buttons, but it does have a full banner, and two buttons that appear to be more like 88x40. The October 22 1996 snapshot of the re-designed homepage shows several 88x31 buttons on the sidebar.

So the 88x31 button format seems to have emerged in sometime in 1995 on the Netscape website as part of promotion of their Navigator browser. I suspect the promotion effort stemmed from Netscape's highly anticipated and successful 1995 IPO. By 1996 the 88x31 button format was prevalent. It's easy to find snapshots and screenshots of many websites showing 88x31 buttons including GeoCities from 1996 onward.

So we have a rough idea of where the 88x31 button format originated from and when. But why the 88x31 size?

why is the 88x31 button 88x31?

On their NETSCAPE NOW PROGRAM page, Netscape mentions the following:

By joining the Netscape Now program, you will receive an authorized logo from Netscape for display on your site. Simply fill out and submit an application, and we will send you the corresponding image and usage guidelines.

Why would you need an "authorized" image? And why would Netscape bother sending you one? Because further down the page there is a significant benefit for official program participants "...we will display your company or product logo in the Netscape Customer Showcase - free of charge - and will give you a 10 percent partner discount on advertising on the Netscape Internet site." But how would Netscape know if you were using an authorized image?

On the guideline page for usage of the "Netscape Now" button for Netscape Now program participants you find the following in the list of guidelines:

Minimum Size The minimum size of the Netscape Now button is 88 by 32 pixels. The button may be displayed at a larger size, but all elements of the button must be increased in size proportionally.

Did you notice something? The minimum size of the button is 88x32. Not 31. But every instance of the button on their site is 88x31.

I suspect Netscape used 88x31 "sample" sized buttons to promote their "Now" rewards program and browser. But then they released "official" 88x32 buttons to registered rewards program participants. It would be a quick and easy way to verify if your site was using an "authorized" image.

But if all you wanted was a "Now" button or if you wanted to modify or remix it, well you'd just grab the unofficial 88x31 "sample" size buttons off the Netscape site and riff. And riff people did. I also suspect this usage guideline "No Alteration Allowed - The Netscape Now button must not be altered in ANY way. Do not shrink it; take it apart; change its proportions, color, or font; or otherwise alter it from the Netscape-supplied version." did little to discourage people and probably outright encouraged them just for spite - y'know because the Internet. By the end of the decade and well into the 2000's everyone used 88x31 buttons - from software giants like Microsoft, advertisers, media outlets, technology sites, to Geocities homesteaders - everybody. But why has it stuck around so long?

why is the 88x31 so durable?

While diving into the origins of the 88x31 button, I came across an article by Yequari titled "Why Are We Still Using 88x31 Buttons?". It's a good read and makes some good points, but I don't know if it answers it's own premise- why are we still using 88x31 buttons?

Yequari writes "I get it. 88x31 buttons are a fun way to express yourself and show off what your website is about. They were an essential piece of the web 1.0 culture which many are trying to revive. And to be clear, creating fun graphics is awesome! Creating art out of nostalgia for a time gone by is rad as hell. But the 88x31 format just ain’t it. It’s incredibly limiting and impractical. Computer screens today have over double the screen space than those for which the 88x31 button was designed."

I agree- 88x31 buttons aren't terribly practical. So something else must be at play to explain their longevity. 88x31 certainly were popular but how popular? But there were many popular button and banner formats from the 90's and 00's Internet that have gone by the wayside. If only we had a way of measuring "popularity" over time - a way to gauge the staying power of a particular format. Thankfully, we do. But first, more history.

In 1994 the HotWired website launched with the first "banner" ads. Sized at 468x60, these Hotwired banners became a "standard" size due simply to being first and popular. By 1996 banners were everywhere. GeoCites listed the following ad standards:

• GIF or JPG file format
• 468x60 pixels
• <=7.5 K file size
• we can alternate among multiple banners
• we can update with new banners weekly

And the full banner was one of many sizes of buttons and banners in play. By 1998 there were banners, half banners, and any number of other square and rectangular buttons in a range of sizes (including the 88x31 button):

This 1997 snapshot of Hotwired.com shows 2 half-wdith banners and a weird 144x72 button at the top of the page. Another 1997 Hotwired snapshot has a button measuring 127x127 on right, but squeezed into a 125x125 area. This 1998 snapshot has two half-width banners and a 120x60 button at the top of the page.

In 1996 Geocities had some 117x40 buttons on left in addition to a banner ad.

In 1998 PCWorld had multiple 88x31 buttons and a 125x125 square button on the left.

TipWorld in 1998 Had 4 125x125 square buttons in a stack.

Yahoo had a banner area measuring 230x33 at the top of the page. And you can find examples of banners sized natively for that odd size like in this 1997 snapshot or natively sized at 468x60 and squeezed down to fit the Yahoo front page banner area.

As advertising spread through the web, it quickly became big business. In 1995 the creators of DoubleClick developed the concept on inserting targeted ads into sites on behalf of advertisers and brokers only a year after the first banner ads appeared. But the wide variety of sizes and formats was a challenge for site owners and advertisers. In 1997 to bring order to the chaos the newly formed IAB (Internet Advertising Bureau, later Interactive Advertising Bureau), an association of advertising, technology, ISP, and Internet media companies, contracted an Advertising Effectiveness Study using data from 12 "top" websites and produced a list of effective ad banner and button sizes in 1998 and released them as recommendations:

Size (pixels):
468 x 60 Full Banner
392 x 72 Full Banner with Vertical Navigation Bar
234 x 60 Half Banner
125 x 125 Square Button
120 x 90 Button #1
120 x 60 Button #2
88 x 31 Micro Button
120 x 240 Vertical Banner

And along side its more famous older sibling, the "full banner", is the 88x31 "Micro Button" (by 2004 when I bookmarked the IAB site it became the "Micro Bar")⁴. But standard or not how durable could the little 88x31 button be? After all by the end of the decade 1024x768 and larger screen resolutions were becoming common and website designers were moving toward larger ad formats to take advantage of that increased screen real estate. The 2004 IAB recommendations included several new and larger ad sizes (with more arriving in later years):

300 x 250 IMU - (Medium Rectangle)
250 x 250 IMU - (Square Pop-Up)
240 x 400 IMU - (Vertical Rectangle)
336 x 280 IMU - (Large Rectangle)
180 x 150 IMU - (Rectangle)
728 x 90 IMU - (Leaderboard)
160 x 600 IMU - (Wide Skyscraper)
120 x 600 IMU - (Skyscraper)
300 x 600 IMU - (Half Page Ad)

Well 14 years after their first ad format recommendations and over a decade of ad-buy, click-through, and engagement data in hand the IAB de-listed a number of ad banner sizes, including the near ubiquitous full banner of the 90's and 2000's widely regarded as kicking off the Internet ad revolution:

250 x 250 Square Pop-Up
240 x 400 Vertical Rectangle
336 x 280 Large Rectangle
300 x 100 3:1 Rectangle
720 x 300 Pop-Under
468 x 60 Full Banner
234 x 60 Half Banner
120 x 90 Button 1
120 x 240 Vertical Banner
125 x 125 Square Button
120 x 600 Skyscraper

But the venerable 88x31 micro bar? It was still listed in the guidelines. Despite it's display limitations it was still attractive and engaging enough to advertisers and users to maintain it's status as a standard ad format. And I think that's why it has staying power it maintained engagement despite its limitations- it's a matter of fun over function.

alternatives to the 88x31 button

But what if 88x31 buttons aren't for you? 88x31 buttons, especially of the animated variety, are often employed to invoke a certain flavor of Internet kitsch. Maybe that's not what you're aiming for. And concerns about visibility and accessibility are valid - especially if your site is intended to be viewed by a wider audience. Yequari takes issue with the 88x31 mainly in terms of visibility/accessibility issues and suggests a larger 200x40 format:

The 200x40 format is is simply superior to 88x31. It’s still small enough to not worry much about the filesize, but it’s large enough to have text readable to my deteriorating eyes alongside a fun graphic. Stacking a bunch of them together is way less overwhelming to look at, especially if they’re animated.

A 200x40 banner is definitely better in terms of visibility/readability on high-res screens- but the format is odd. I found one instance of a 200x40 banner in the wild while researching this article. I found a 205x53 button on this 2005 snapshot of the Wired website. But that's the closest I could find.

Instead of 200x40, I would suggest one of the depreciated banner formats from the IAB's old recommendations like the 234 x 60 Half Banner or the 120 x 60 Button #2. Why? Since the half banner and 120x60 button survived into the early 2010s you have over two decades of banners and buttons in archive.org snapshots to riff from or include outright for "flavor".

Here are a few examples:

120x60

234x60

conclusions

Will I be using 88x31 buttons on my own site? Maybe. Will I try some alternate formats? Also maybe. I've been reworking old icons to add some flavor to my pages, but I haven't decided on other graphics yet.

In the end though I have to conclude that, love them or hate them, 88x31 buttons are good. They occupy a unique space defined by their prevalence on the early web that wasn't due to a cash-fueled advertising rush⁵ forced on Internet surfers, but was because of their origin as freely released buttons that could be easily co-opted, remixed, and spread organically. The Internet embraced them early on, and I don't see any sign they'll be let go any time soon.