Not fantastic: https://www.websitecarbon.com/website/smashingmagazine-com-2...
How could this be improved?
How we improved our website's performance
11–20 of 76 posts
Re: How we improved our website's performance
#12"Modern" web development is apparently a game of Jenga.
I don't understand the point you're making. Mind elaborating?
Re: How we improved our website's performance
#13"Modern" web development is apparently a game of Jenga.
It certainly feels that way sometimes. But web is rather unique. There aren't any other platforms that demand you deliver an application for "a device" (specifications unknown!) in under 1 second.
Re: How we improved our website's performance
#14Not fantastic: https://www.websitecarbon.com/website/smashingmagazine-com-2...
How could this be improved?
Re: How we improved our website's performance
#15It's still way too slow. It's a big page of text. It should load in an instant. In my browser, I see 1.75 MB sent over the wire and a 2.5 second load time. My big pages of text [1] need 105 kB and load in 0.4 seconds. Their compressed critical CSS is the same size as my entire uncompressed CSS file. They send more CSS bytes than I send bytes in total. If you want to make a content website fast, it's quite simple: sen…
> It should load in an instant.
FWIW, it does load in an instant for me. (Lighthouse Performance = 99, Speed Index = 0.4s.)
Re: How we improved our website's performance
#16It's still way too slow. It's a big page of text. It should load in an instant. In my browser, I see 1.75 MB sent over the wire and a 2.5 second load time. My big pages of text [1] need 105 kB and load in 0.4 seconds. Their compressed critical CSS is the same size as my entire uncompressed CSS file. They send more CSS bytes than I send bytes in total. If you want to make a content website fast, it's quite simple: sen…
> It should load in an instant. FWIW, it does load in an instant for me. (Lighthouse Performance = 99, Speed Index = 0.4s.)
Me too, but I'm loading it on a $3000 computer with 150Mbps/<10ms internet. Generally it's a good idea to only focus on the mobile score. :)
Re: How we improved our website's performance
#17It's still way too slow. It's a big page of text. It should load in an instant. In my browser, I see 1.75 MB sent over the wire and a 2.5 second load time. My big pages of text [1] need 105 kB and load in 0.4 seconds. Their compressed critical CSS is the same size as my entire uncompressed CSS file. They send more CSS bytes than I send bytes in total. If you want to make a content website fast, it's quite simple: sen…
Your website was way faster on mobile data, kudos.
Re: How we improved our website's performance
#18"Modern" web development is apparently a game of Jenga.
It certainly feels that way sometimes. But web is rather unique. There aren't any other platforms that demand you deliver an application for "a device" (specifications unknown!) in under 1 second.
Web is indeed unique. No one else would consider a magazine article "an application".
Re: How we improved our website's performance
#1912 people for a static site seems like a huge team to me.
I'm pretty sure most of them would double as writers, or illustrators, etc. It's not a normal magazine per-se, since the articles are all technical ones. It also mentions many of the 12 are part-time and/or wear other hats.
Re: How we improved our website's performance
#20"Modern" web development is apparently a game of Jenga.
I don't understand the point you're making. Mind elaborating?
There is a ridiculous number of moving parts, stacked on top of each other, interacting in unforeseeable ways to allow you to shoot yourself in the foot, and absolutely nothing is straightforward.
OK, that basically describes any kind of software development, but web seems so much worse than anything else. And I say that as someone doing mainly Java backend development who's learned to live with the AbstractProxyFactoryManagerFactory jokes.