Comment by Oxidation

I'm not sure I agree with all of that: a notable difference between modern media and 1800s newsprint is the paper was very expensive then compared to more recently, so it was highly economical to cram everything onto fewer physical pages. Electronic media has essentially zero marginal costs for longer or less dense content.

The same goes for cheaper books (which still were not as cheap as modern mass-market books in PPP terms): narrow margins and crammed text. But as soon as you move up market to expensive books, the margins widen and the text lines open up. People still liked the aesthetic of open and airy, but it cost a lot.

Further more, for signs, you had to get everything on them. There was no Internet, no phones, no Yellow Pages, no CeeFax. Someone interested in your service would have to stand there and copy the relevant details into their pocket book.

On the other hand, I do very much detest the glossy websites where there are something like 20,000 vertical pixels of flashy content, but none of it useful. Just endless fluff, vagueries and calls-to-ill-defined-actions. 90% of people just want to know your opening hours, contact details and a price list (services) or menu (for food). And the delivery costs. Everything else is a waste of everyone's bandwidth until you have made those things front and centre.