Live data from Hacker News

Page Weight Matters (2012)

blog.chriszacharias.com

51–60 of 171 posts

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#51
post #29
post #7

If 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.…

We AABN tested injecting delay into rendering the MSN home page and found a direct correlation between amount of delay and the abandon rate. People are not tolerant of delay. Here is the team I worked on: http://www.exp-platform.com/Pages/default.aspx

"people"? What people? This OP's experience seems to indicate that there is a lot of patience in "Southeast Asia, South America, Africa, and even remote regions of Siberia".

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#52

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.

Well think about it. Imagine you had no alternative to getting any video on the internet? After all, if not youtube, anything else was probably slower at the time. Obviously you wouldn't simply lose the desire to watch relevant videos, it'd be dimmed quite significantly sure but you'd still want to watch a video every now and then. Whether it's a music video, or a chess match or a farming lecture, there's just a ridi…

> you'd still want to watch a video every now and then

My favorite example of this is YouTube repair tutorials. If I need to get something done, these can be irreplaceable. If I had a slow connection, but my car was up on the jack stand, I'd just have to wait.

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#53
post #10

Everyone's sometimes on spotty WiFi or foreign expensive 3G. I'm more inclined to trust fast-loading sites and apps. I wonder what would happen if for example iOS decided to visually indicate page weight, kind of like how you can see which apps use the most energy.

I think that's a great idea. Make it more visible, and then you get normal people to care about it and put pressure on content owners, developers, etc. Like Google did with their "mobile-friendly" tag; I could yell at my managers all day about how we need to improve our site's mobile experience to no avail, but Google steps in and threatens lower rankings and suddenly it becomes top priority.

Perhaps the simplest solution is for Google to start penalizing heavy pages, but as far as I know, page weight isn't part of their mobile-friendly criteria.

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#54
post #43
post #7

If 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 took this screenshot yesterday. This was a page showing a news article (text). http://i.imgur.com/hmFaW3M.png

Most of those are on my /etc/hosts blocklist. Or would be were I aware of them. Worthless crap.

BTW: /etc/hosts + dnsmasq, for Linux, is amazing. (dnsmasq reads /etc/hosts and will block entire domains if listed as same).

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#55
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that there isn't a daily drumbeat about how bloated, how needlessly complex, how ridicuous most of the world's web appliactions of today really are - baffles me Well there is, or at least there used to be. The reason native apps in mobile became so popular is exactly because web sites are bloated. It might not matter in the PC but in a device running on batteries it matters a lot. The real problem of web dev…

> Well there is, or at least there used to be. The reason native apps in mobile became so popular is exactly because web sites are bloated. It might not matter in the PC but in a device running on batteries it matters a lot. I think you'd find a much easier case made that its because: 1) discoverability and distribution through app stores, 2) access to native features that took years to be enabled in the mobile web (…

> 3) ability to make games (access to graphics, etc -- this also kind of hampers the case being made about "bloated" sites when people seem very willing to download 100MB games)

There's a huge difference between downloading a 100 MB app once (plus occasional background updates) and waiting to load a 100 MB web game every time it falls out of cache.

Plus the web loading delay happens constantly while you're trying to use it. You wait on an app download exactly one time: when you buy/install it.

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#56
When I joined Google in 2009, we were on the tail-end of a latency optimization kick that Larry had started in 2007. At the time, we had a budget of 20K gzipped for the entire search results page. I remember working on the visual redesign of 2010, where we had increased the page weight from 16K to 19K and there was much handwringing at the higher levels about how we were going to blow our entire latency budget on one change.

We did some crazy stuff to squeeze everything in. We would literally count bytes on every change - one engineer wrote a tool that would run against your changelist demo server and output the difference in gzipped size of it. We used 'for(var i=0,e;e=arr[i++];) { ... }' as our default foreach loop because it was one character shorter than explicitly incrementing the loop counter. All HTML tags that could be left unterminated were, and all attributes that could be unquoted were. CSS classnames were manually named with 1-3 character abbreviations, with a dictionary elsewhere, to save on bytesize. I ran an experiment to see if we could use JQuery on the SRP (everything was done in raw vanilla JS), and the results were that it doubled the byte size and latency of the SRP, so that was a complete non-starter. At one point I had to do a CSS transition on an element that didn't exist in the HTML, because it was too heavy and so we had to pull it over via AJAX, so I had to do all sorts of crazy contortions to predict the height and position of revealed elements before the code for them actually existed on the client.

A lot of these convolutions should've been done by compiler, and indeed, a lot were moved to one when we got an HTML-aware templating language. But it gave me a real appreciation for how to write tight, efficient code under constraints - real engineering, not just slapping libraries together.

Alas, when I left the SRP was about 350K, which is atrocious. It looks like it's since been whittled down under 100K, but I still sometimes yearn for the era when Google loaded instantaneously.

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#57
post #7

If 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.…

The fact that there isn't a daily drumbeat about how bloated, how needlessly complex, how ridicuous most of the world's web appliactions of today really are - baffles me.

I feel Jakob Nielsen used to majorly play this role amongst Web developers back in the day, but for some reason I haven't seen him come across my radar for many years now. The Web performance experts now are better than ever but I don't get the sense of the majority of the industry hanging off their every word as seemed to happen with Jakob 10+ years ago.

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#58
Page weight may matter, but I think amortized page weight matters most. It's like the marshmallow experiment for the web. If you can make one request at 10x the size, but it's only made 1/100th as often (presumably spans multiple pages) then as long as people come back enough to justify that initial extra cost, you've effectively decreased to 1/10th again.

That's why I think AJAX, web manifest [1], indexedDB, localStorage, etc. need to be leveraged much more. Imagine most of your app loading without making a single request, except for the latest front page JSON, or the latest . You have a bunch already in indexedDB so you just ask the server "hey, what's new after ID X or timestamp T?"

So your two minutes just became a couple milliseconds (or whatever your disk latency happens to be), and the data loads shortly thereafter, assuming there's not much new data to send back. And if you don't need any new resources, you only had to make a single request.

[1] https://github.com/w3c/manifest

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#59
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took this screenshot yesterday. This was a page showing a news article (text). http://i.imgur.com/hmFaW3M.png

Most of those are on my /etc/hosts blocklist. Or would be were I aware of them. Worthless crap. BTW: /etc/hosts + dnsmasq, for Linux, is amazing . (dnsmasq reads /etc/hosts and will block entire domains if listed as same).

For Firefox users, is this better than NoScript for any reason?

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well there is, or at least there used to be. The reason native apps in mobile became so popular is exactly because web sites are bloated. It might not matter in the PC but in a device running on batteries it matters a lot. I think you'd find a much easier case made that its because: 1) discoverability and distribution through app stores, 2) access to native features that took years to be enabled in the mobile web (…

> 3) ability to make games (access to graphics, etc -- this also kind of hampers the case being made about "bloated" sites when people seem very willing to download 100MB games) There's a huge difference between downloading a 100 MB app once (plus occasional background updates) and waiting to load a 100 MB web game every time it falls out of cache. Plus the web loading delay happens constantly while you're trying to…

Games also often have loading screens. I think the real counter there is that there is a big difference between waiting to play a 3d game vs waiting to read a news article.
Post reply on HN