Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Page Weight Matters (2012)

blog.chriszacharias.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 171 posts

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#71

Post by burkaman »

coldpie wrote: post #59
dredmorbius wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think it could make pages load marginally faster, because NoScript only stops scripts from executing, where a hosts blocklist would stop the scripts from ever being downloaded.

I think, not totally sure how NoScript works.

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#72

Post by latortuga »

Splines wrote: post #33

If you're on Windows you can use the Network Emulator for Windows Toolkit (NEWT): http://blogs.technet.com/b/juanand/archive/2010/03/05/standa... I've used it to emulate what it's like on a high-latency or high-loss network. Relatively easy tool to use.

Chrome also has this feature if you switch to device mode (Ctrl+Shift+M).

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#73

Post by romland »

coldpie wrote: post #59
dredmorbius wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I can't say whether it's better or worse. It's different. With NoScript you still hit "remote" servers when it comes to other resources, like images.

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#74

Post by greggman »

gketuma wrote: post #5

As 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'm looking at you Airbnb that I often need to access from bad hotel wifi in a far away country :(

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#75

Post by chinathrow »

kuschku wrote: post #65
nostrademons wrote: post #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…

Remember, http://google.com/custom still loads instantly ;)

Yeah and no TLS handshakes need to be performed either.

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#76

Post by wlesieutre »

tolmasky wrote: post #60
wlesieutre wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There's also a big difference between loading something out of flash storage and loading it off the internet.

My 4G connection right now is speedtesting at 46.68 Mbps download.

An iPhone 6 benchmark I found on MacRumors can read at 6720 Mbps (840 MB/s) [1]

Given the choice, I'd take the option that's 140x faster.

[1] http://forums.macrumors.com/attachments/img_0005-png.514599/

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#77

Post by coldpie »

burkaman wrote: post #71
coldpie wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think it could make pages load marginally faster, because NoScript only stops scripts from executing, where a hosts blocklist would stop the scripts from ever being downloaded. I think, not totally sure how NoScript works.

Nah, NoScript blocks them at load-time, too.

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#78

Post by geocar »

spion wrote: post #49
phamilton wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * Advertising / analytics companies. They deliver a boatload of code that does very little for the end-user. That's not quite fair. They subsidize the content for the end-user. Perhaps that's a crappy status quo, but in many cases without the advertising and analytics the content wouldn't exist in the first place.

Perhaps. But maybe, if you add googleads, amazon adsystem, moatads, rubicon project, taboola, scorecardresearch, krdx etc [1], then you start wondering why are users using adblockers, so you add pagefair, and at that point you want to find out what works better so you add optimizely... maybe, just maybe, at that point, you're actually losing money because your page is so damn slow, rather than getting more because of…

I remember when I was young, Television was sponsored by Advertisers: One of my favourite shows, was made possible because of Advertisers. To bemoan Advertisers in my mind is to say that part of my childhood should never have existed, so I think greater, more focused criticism is required.

Do you ever wonder why the landscape became the way it did?

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#79

Post by 4ad »

kuschku wrote: post #65
nostrademons wrote: post #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…

Remember, http://google.com/custom still loads instantly ;)

Wow, THANK YOU!

It blows my mind this is not advertised and not the default.

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#80

Post by gopowerranger »

petercooper wrote: post #57
dpweb wrote: 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 sens…

I get weekly newsletters from him. Still good stuff.
Post reply on HN