Is that "import" translating the external CSS into CSS-in-JS for you, or is it just creating a LINK tag resulting in the sxtra handshake? If the latter I'd be against it on those grounds alone.
But really if it's static CSS that's used all the time, why the blazes are you loading it from the scripting instead of the markup? I mean, if the CSS is only relevant to DOM elements created by the scripting then fine...
Though please for the love of Christmas tell me your not actually doing marquee's like the ugliest websites of the '90's. Remember the reason the tag was rejected from 4 Strict wasn't just that it was presentation, it's also a giant middle finger to accessibility.
Just like how using classes to say things like size="large" is the bleeding edge of 1997 thinking to the point you might as well be using FONT tags, and why 90%+ of what people do with "front end frameworks" are a monument to developer ignorance, incompetence, and ineptitude.
Though that seems to be the target audience of chazerei like react/vue/angular/etc, etc... people with their craniums shoved up 1997's backside and unqualified to write a single blasted line of HTML.
As evidenced by the accessibility disaster of the scripting only functionality for something that should’t even need scripting like that “diary e-mail” thing. You didn’t even go so far as to providing a NOSCRIPT to tell people the reason they have a giant blank page is that scripting is blocked/disabled/unavailable. Way to both violate WCAG norms whilst simultaneously generating bounce AND giving search engines nothing to deal with and/or making them work harder.
Hence why the generated DOM structure is an equal train wreck of endless pointless DIV for nothing, endless pointless classes for nothing, static SVG delivered where it’s uncached, and a further violation of accessibility norms with its gibberish lack of proper semantics. Hardly a shock once normalized the home page alone works out to 66k of generated markup to deliver 1.49k of plaintext and five content images — not even 5k of HTML’s job.
Thing about it, for the static homepage ALONE the nonsensical scripting junk you’ve chosen have resulted in deploying over a megabyte and a half of code spread out over 6 files, to do what likely shouldn’t take more than WORST CASE 96k in three files.
For something that doesn’t even seem to be an SPA, and if it is, it’s one of the worst I’ve ever seen since nothing being done warrants having started life as such… not that I can get deep into it enough to tell since it doesn’t seem to deliver those signup e-mails, making it look more like a spam mail harvester than a legitimate service.
Apologies if that sounds harsh, but that’s what I’m seeing and entirely within the norms of technologies like those you’re advocating for… and that’s REALLY not a good thing.