Thought certainly an interesting anecdote, I don't understand how a video streaming site like YouTube would be useful in a market where a 100K download takes 2+ minutes. You'd have to open a page, walk away for an hour, and hope everything was OK when you got back.
Page Weight Matters (2012)
21–30 of 171 posts
Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)
#22Thought certainly an interesting anecdote, I don't understand how a video streaming site like YouTube would be useful in a market where a 100K download takes 2+ minutes. You'd have to open a page, walk away for an hour, and hope everything was OK when you got back.
But if you couldn't even load the pages to browse through the videos, that'd pretty significantly reduce your watching even further.
Liken it perhaps to a library where you could only get 1 book per week. Well that's not much, but at least you can get 1 book. But if you go to the library you have to wait in line for an hour, and after examining one book section of 10 books, you have to wait 5 minutes to examine the next one. Choosing the weekly book would become such a chore you'd probably not even bother to go anymore. But if you'd suddenly be able to examine the entire library with only 1 minute of total waiting, many more would be much more inclined to do so, even if they could still only borrow 1 book per week.
Beyond that in my experience, lots of requests in a slow connection often fails before completing fully. I don't know why exactly, I've never been a network engineer. While streaming in a slow connection eventually gets there. So it's entirely possible that even browsing normal pages was failing entirely before for some people, even though (if they ever did load the page and choose a video), the video download worked fine albeit at a very slow pace.
Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow. The verge was the poster child for most bloated site even three years ago, long before the recent ruckus.
What was the recent ruckus?
Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)
#24After 6 months of banging my head against a wall, I realized the reason we weren't fixing page weight was because our product managers didn't care about the experience of users in poorer countries, because they didn't have any money to spend anyway. Even though we had lots of users in those countries, and even though we made a big show of how you could use this app to travel anywhere in the world.
If there's a lesson there, its that as long as cold economic calculations drive product decisions, this stuff isn't going to get any better.
Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)
#25As a web dev I always have this in mind but the challenge is convincing your client who wants a video background. Maybe we need a media query that detects internet speed.
I find video backgrounds ridiculous most of the time (though they can be done really well), but that's not the real problem here - the real problem is including 200-800kb javascript code that does nothing but track your user, and often enough doesn't do it for you! (Hi Facebook!)
The real problem is using massive js frameworks for the sake of adding dynamic functionality to your site that, often enough, isn't actually worth it.
The real problem is that very often, these "features" are only as necessary as the marketing team says they are... the people who have the ability to ask "why?" and the ability to understand "why not" don't have the voice (or guts...) to do so.
Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)
#26If you have an engineering mind and care about such things - you care about complexity. Even if you don't - user experience matters to everyone. Have you ever seen something completely insane and everyone around doesn't seem to recognize how awful it really is. That is the web of today. 60-80 requests? 1MB+ single pages? Your functionality, I don't care if its Facebook - does not need that much. It is not necessary.…
IMO pretty clear why, winner-takes-most economics emphasizes dev speed over quality, and then we need to maintain compat with it
Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)
#27Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)
#28Thought certainly an interesting anecdote, I don't understand how a video streaming site like YouTube would be useful in a market where a 100K download takes 2+ minutes. You'd have to open a page, walk away for an hour, and hope everything was OK when you got back.
This was my first experience with the web in high school, with a modem, on AOL. I loved it.
Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)
#29If you have an engineering mind and care about such things - you care about complexity. Even if you don't - user experience matters to everyone. Have you ever seen something completely insane and everyone around doesn't seem to recognize how awful it really is. That is the web of today. 60-80 requests? 1MB+ single pages? Your functionality, I don't care if its Facebook - does not need that much. It is not necessary.…
Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)
#30If you have an engineering mind and care about such things - you care about complexity. Even if you don't - user experience matters to everyone. Have you ever seen something completely insane and everyone around doesn't seem to recognize how awful it really is. That is the web of today. 60-80 requests? 1MB+ single pages? Your functionality, I don't care if its Facebook - does not need that much. It is not necessary.…
I'm in Bangalore and being forced to use mobile 3G for now. The data charges are atrocious and each page load saps an MB.