The Tiny 88×31 Button Is Finding Its Way Back Onto Personal Websites

Where Did 88×31 Come From?

The history is less certain than some retellings suggest.

GeoCities is frequently credited with establishing the format because its free personal websites became strongly associated with small graphical badges. Another version of the story gives credit to Netscape and its “Netscape Now!” graphics.

The surviving evidence makes a simple invention story difficult to defend. The 88×31 Archive, which was extracted from preserved GeoCities material, reports that its oldest identified 88×31 file carries a modification date of October 16, 1995 and is a Netscape Now! button. That is useful evidence of early use, but a surviving file date does not prove who first created the format. [88×31 Archive statistics].

There is a second uncertainty. Even if one organization could be shown to have popularized the format first, that would not necessarily explain why the dimensions were exactly 88 by 31 pixels. Several explanations circulate, but strong contemporary documentation for the choice of those exact numbers is difficult to establish.

The safest conclusion is narrower. The 88×31 format was already in use during the rapid expansion of the Web in the mid-1990s. Netscape was among its earliest prominent users for which evidence survives, while GeoCities helped carry the convention through an enormous culture of personal websites. Browser companies, software projects, standards organizations and individual site owners then helped turn the dimensions into a familiar informal Web convention.

Interestingly, the 2026 Internet-Draft discussed later in this article states more firmly that the format originated with GeoCities. Because the surviving historical evidence does not conclusively establish that point, this article takes the more cautious view. See "The Well Known Button Information Specification".

Micro-Banners on a Much Bigger Web

The 88×31 button also belonged to a larger visual world.

Commercial web advertising was developing at the same time, but advertising banners were generally much larger. The Web Design Museum separates the small graphics into a category it calls “micro banners,” showing Netscape examples from 1995 and Netscape, Internet Explorer, GeoCities and other buttons from 1996. [Web Design Museum: Web Banners in the 90s].

That distinction helps explain why 88×31 graphics worked so well on personal pages. They could promote something, but they did not need to dominate the page like a conventional advertising banner. A site owner could place several of them together in a footer, sidebar or dedicated links page.

Their small scale also made them easy to exchange. One website could display buttons from many unrelated sites without turning the page into a wall of large advertisements.

They Were More Than Advertisements

An 88×31 button did not have one fixed purpose.

Some promoted browsers. Others said that a website was “Powered by” a particular technology. Some represented clubs, causes, fandoms or software projects. Still others were miniature advertisements for another personal website.

The World Wide Web Consortium also used the format for its familiar validation badges. W3C validator documentation shows a “Valid XHTML 1.0” graphic specified at exactly 88 pixels wide and 31 pixels high. Authors whose pages passed validation could display the badge and link it back to the validator. [W3C Markup Validator help].

That placed the dimensions not only in personal-homepage and browser culture, but also in the standards-conscious Web of the late 1990s and 2000s.

For personal websites, however, perhaps the most interesting use was simply: here is a little picture representing my site. If you like the site, display the picture and use it to link back to me.

That made an 88×31 button something like a portable identity card for a website. Instead of another site mentioning you only as a line of text, a tiny piece of your site's own visual identity could travel with the link.

A collection of buttons could therefore say a surprising amount about the person who assembled it. It might identify friends, favorite websites, communities, technologies, political causes, hobbies, software preferences and jokes, all within a few rows of tiny graphics.

This was not quite a social network in the modern sense because there was usually no central service maintaining the relationships. One website owner decided to link to another, and the resulting connection lived in that person's own HTML.

Buttons and the Browser Wars

Browser buttons also belonged to the browser wars of the 1990s.

Websites sometimes announced that they were “best viewed” with Netscape Navigator or Internet Explorer, particularly when pages depended on browser-specific features or behaved differently between browsers. A surviving 1996 Netscape page itself carried the message “Best viewed with Netscape Navigator” beside an 88×31 Netscape Now! graphic.

This was not always merely enthusiasm from individual webmasters. A 1997 agreement between Netscape and Yahoo required Yahoo, as a Netscape “Premier Provider,” to display a Netscape Now button and use language recommending Netscape Navigator.

The little browser badge could therefore do several jobs at once. It might be an advertisement, a compatibility warning, part of a commercial agreement or simply a declaration of preference during an unusually competitive period in browser history.

Contemporary websites provide other examples. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin warned readers in 1996 that one version of its site was frame-intensive, recommended Netscape Navigator 2.0 and offered a Netscape download link.

The 88×31 format was therefore connected not only to personal expression but also to one of the formative commercial and technical battles of the early Web.

Why the Size Worked

Whatever its original reason, the widespread use of one small rectangle had an obvious practical advantage.

An 88×31 image was large enough to contain a short name, logo or bit of pixel art, but small enough for many buttons to appear together. Because the dimensions were predictable, graphics made by unrelated people could be arranged into rows without every image demanding a different layout.

The size also imposed an unusual creative constraint. Eighty-eight by thirty-one pixels gives a designer only 2,728 pixels to work with. Within that space, people created logos, slogans, animations, browser preferences, political messages, warnings, jokes and miniature artworks.

The shape was standardized informally. What people did inside it was not.

Tens of Thousands Survive

The surviving collections give some sense of the scale.

The 88×31 Archive currently reports 76,199 images extracted from preserved GeoCities material, including duplicates. After exact duplicates are removed, it reports 29,257 unique files. The archive also says that its oldest identified 88×31 file was last modified on October 16, 1995 and its newest on September 2, 2009. [88×31 Archive statistics and history].

Those numbers need a qualification. They measure images found in one large preserved body of GeoCities data. They do not tell us how many 88×31 buttons existed across the entire Web, and they do not measure how many websites use the format today.

There is also an important difference between preserving old buttons and making new ones.

The modern practice does both. Contemporary collections contain historical graphics rescued from older websites, but personal-site owners are also designing completely new 88×31 buttons for websites that did not exist during the GeoCities era. Neocities' current 88x31 tag includes active personal websites and dedicated button archives, while IndieWeb documents sites that offer newly made buttons for others to use [Neocities: 88x31 sites IndieWeb: current 88x31 examples].

That distinction matters. This is not simply an archive culture preserving a dead graphic format. New material is still being created within the same old dimensions.

Why Are They Appearing Again?

On today's personal Web, the appeal appears to be partly visual and partly social.

An 88×31 button can be handmade, animated, awkward, polished, strange, funny or deliberately primitive without needing to conform to the design system of a large platform. A site owner can create one simply because it feels representative of the site.

The button also makes a recommendation unusually explicit. Someone has chosen another website and decided to place a link to it. There is no recommendation algorithm deciding which website appears next and no central feed automatically arranging the connection.

In that respect, the 88×31 button belongs to the same broad family as the blogroll and the webring. Each provides a route from one independently operated website to another.

There is a subtle difference, however. A conventional text link normally adopts the appearance of the site displaying it. An exchanged button can carry a piece of the destination site's appearance onto somebody else's page. The linked website gets to say, in miniature, “this is how I would like to be represented.”

That helps explain why the format can still serve a purpose beyond nostalgia.

There are concrete current examples. On June 30, 2026, the owner of wolfgirl.dev announced a new “button wall,” wrote that they were proud of the buttons made for it, and invited other website owners to send their own 88×31 graphics. The stated aim was to expand the site's “social web” by connecting it with other independent sites.[wolfgirl.dev: Blogroll & Button Wall & Small Redesign].

That is a small example, but it illustrates the revival better than an archive does. These buttons are not only being remembered. People are again making them specifically so other people can place them on their own websites.

The revival should still not be exaggerated. There is good evidence of current use within personal-site, Neocities and IndieWeb communities. There is not good evidence that 88×31 buttons are becoming an important feature of mainstream commercial web design.

What is happening is smaller and, in some ways, more interesting: people making independent websites are selectively rediscovering an old way of linking those sites together.

Accessibility Cannot Be Left in the 1990s

There are also old practices that should not simply be copied unchanged.

An 88×31 image used as the only content of a link needs an appropriate text alternative. For a functional image, the alternative text should communicate the purpose of the link rather than merely describe the appearance of the graphic. [W3C guidance on functional images].

Animation also requires care. Some old buttons flash rapidly or change text so quickly that they are difficult to read. Modern accessibility standards include specific restrictions concerning flashing content because certain patterns can cause physical reactions or seizures. [W3C guidance on flashing content].

The lesson is not that animated 88×31 buttons are inherently inaccessible. It is that reviving an old visual form does not require reviving every old design habit with it.

Interestingly, accessibility is also one of the issues addressed by a new attempt to make exchanging these buttons more systematic.

The 2026 Twist

On March 29, 2026, kleines Filmröllchen and Lunar Eclipse published an individual Internet-Draft called The Well Known Button Information Specification. It proposes a predictable file at /.well-known/button.json through which a website could publish machine-readable information about its buttons. See "IETF Datatracker: The Well Known Button Information Specification".

In practical terms, another website or software tool could discover information answering questions such as: Does this website have a button available for use? Where is the image? Where should it link? What alternative text should accompany it?

The proposal goes considerably further than simply publishing an image address. It describes multiple button variants and includes provisions related to accessibility, authorship and consent, licensing, animation, image rendering and hotlinking. It also discusses automated tools that could discover buttons or choose an appropriate version for a particular theme or accessibility requirement.

The hotlinking question is particularly appropriate for the subject.

Personal-site owners have long had a choice between displaying another site's button directly from that site's server and downloading a copy to host locally. Either approach has consequences. Hotlinking leaves the originating site in control of the file and consumes resources from that server. Copying the image makes the receiving site less dependent on the original server, but introduces questions about updates, permission and licensing.

The proposed format attempts to let the site offering the button communicate those preferences in a predictable way.

It Is Not an IETF Standard

This distinction matters.

As of September 8, 2026, The Well Known Button Information Specification is not an IETF standard, not an RFC and not endorsed by the IETF.

The IETF Datatracker identifies it as an Active Internet-Draft (individual) and explicitly says that anyone may submit an Internet-Draft, that this draft is not endorsed by the IETF, and that it has no formal standing in the IETF standards process. The document remains version -00.

The draft is dated March 29, 2026 and is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents and may be updated, replaced or allowed to expire.

There is a related copyright point. The proposal includes fields intended to communicate licensing and consent information, but a metadata format does not rewrite copyright law. The draft itself acknowledges that buttons may be protected by copyright and that its mechanism does not replace existing legal rules.

The interesting claim is therefore not that “the IETF is standardizing 88×31 buttons.” It is not.

The interesting fact is that a visual convention associated with Netscape, GeoCities and hand-built personal websites has inspired people in 2026 to write a detailed machine-readable proposal for exchanging it.

Does a Tiny Button Need a Specification?

Not everyone thinks it does.

The IndieWeb wiki argues that existing HTML can already make an 88×31 image discoverable. Its suggested method uses an ordinary HTML <link> element with rel="icon" and sizes="88x31" rather than a separate .well-known JSON file. [IndieWeb discussion of 88x31 discovery].

That objection does not automatically settle the question.

A site icon and an image specifically offered for other people to use as a link are not necessarily the same concept. The Internet-Draft is also trying to carry additional information about alternative text, multiple variants, consent, authorship, hotlinking and licensing.

Still, the disagreement is part of what makes the story worthwhile.

A graphic measuring 88 by 31 pixels has produced a very contemporary Web argument: does a recurring practice need new machine-readable infrastructure, or can the Web already express what is needed?

A Very Small Piece of Web Culture

The 88×31 button is not about to transform the Web. It is not replacing social networks, taking over mainstream website design or becoming a universal Internet standard.

Its persistence is interesting for a smaller reason.

A convention associated with hand-built websites in the mid-1990s remains understandable enough that people are still creating new examples more than thirty years later.

The technology surrounding those pages has changed enormously. Browsers have changed, screens have changed, publishing platforms have changed, and much of what people once placed on personal homepages moved into centralized social services.

Yet the basic gesture represented by an exchanged 88×31 button requires almost no explanation. One person has a website. Another person likes it enough to place a small piece of it on their own website and point visitors toward it.

That is about as simple as the Web gets. For something only 2,728 pixels in area, the 88×31 button has carried a remarkable amount of Web history.

Back to the top

Legal Matters

This page was created independently of the individuals and organizations discussed, none of whom had editorial control over its contents. It contains no affiliate links, sponsored content, paid placements, or compensated endorsements. Neither the author nor this website received any payment, free or discounted product or service, preferential access, travel, hospitality, gift, or other material benefit connected with this page. Unless expressly disclosed otherwise, neither the author nor this website is affiliated with, sponsored by, endorsed by, or officially connected with any individual or organization mentioned. Names and trademarks are used only to identify the subjects discussed. A mention does not, by itself, constitute a recommendation or endorsement.

Please review the website's full Privacy Policy, Disclaimer, and Further Terms.

Contact

For project inquiries, corrections, accessibility assistance, or general questions: 

Ardan Michael Blum

345 Forest Avenue
Palo Alto, 94301, California, United States

Telephone: +1 (650) 427-9358

Online: Contact Form

Back to the top