141–150 of 398 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, voting doesn't work at all with JS disabled.
Yes, it does. I think you have something weird with your browser: with JS on, it does a light AJAX request, without it, it does the whole redirect thing.
It's not any lighter, it's just not reloading the page.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10489499 "mobile markup"
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12073675 "collapse comments"
HN is lightweight in some ways, but also quite bad in others. For example, every single time you vote on anything, the site sends back a 302 redirect and then a copy of the entire page's HTML in response. This means that every vote results in a response that's usually around 10KB gzipped. As of right now, for me, voting on any comment in this thread currently causes a 14KB response and takes about 1.3 seconds to fini…
This means that every vote results in a response that's usually around 10KB gzipped I have Facebook open in another window and opened the network inspector to compare it: Just moving the mouse towards the like button created 824KB of data transfer. Not sure if it is because of tracking the mouse movement or if it preloads stuff it thinks my mouse is moving towards. Or maybe it loads stuff that it would display if I h…
HN is lightweight in some ways, but also quite bad in others. For example, every single time you vote on anything, the site sends back a 302 redirect and then a copy of the entire page's HTML in response. This means that every vote results in a response that's usually around 10KB gzipped. As of right now, for me, voting on any comment in this thread currently causes a 14KB response and takes about 1.3 seconds to fini…
The reality is that for the bulk of users, votes are an uncommon interaction; most of us are here to read the articles and view the comments. The additional complexity needed to make votes small has an upfront cost, and in this case, I feel the simplicity of the base interface is the better thing to optimize for, and HN's designers appear to agree. 10 kB for what is effectively a server-side page reload (which probably gracefully degrades for folks running NoScript) seems fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Newspapers have always been full of ads fwiw
I'm talking beyond the matter of ads. On their websites I can use an adblocker, so in that respect the situation has actually improved. They regularly fail on basic UX. Their ability to turn a kilobyte of text into 10MB of trash is astounding, as is their ability to cripple modern computer hardware, or simply readability, with their latest 'innovations' in totally unnecessary JS/CSS fuckery. uMatrix blocking all JS,…
HN is lightweight in some ways, but also quite bad in others. For example, every single time you vote on anything, the site sends back a 302 redirect and then a copy of the entire page's HTML in response. This means that every vote results in a response that's usually around 10KB gzipped. As of right now, for me, voting on any comment in this thread currently causes a 14KB response and takes about 1.3 seconds to fini…
Okay quick thought exercise. HN doesn't use a react framework and is quite lightweight on clientside JavaScript. How many upvotes does it take using this system before the total data size transmitted (original page + modifications) is, in sum total, larger than a fresh load of, say, Twitter? The reality is that for the bulk of users, votes are an uncommon interaction; most of us are here to read the articles and view…
It crashed eventually (not surprising given the minuscule amount of RAM this device has), but the front page was visible long enough for me to read some of the titles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It should use 5-50 megabytes of data per page load. Mandatory min of 5MB vs. current 10KB? I'm pretty sure I'm missing the logic here. I sometimes rely on a satellite connection in my access, and I don't hold HN responsible for that fact. I do agree that no anger is merited (nor sane).
The person you're replying to is most likely making a low-effort troll post on how large webapps tend to be now. Keep in mind that most of what's downloaded would be cached, and the response from an up / down vote would be considerably smaller than 10KB.
For heavy users of the site, sure. For someone who has stopped by for the first time, well, good luck with customer acquisition is all I can say.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, voting doesn't work at all with JS disabled.
Yes, it does. I think you have something weird with your browser: with JS on, it does a light AJAX request, without it, it does the whole redirect thing.