Try reverse!
Yeah, clicking that worked way smoother than me scrolling down myself.
Just Scroll
11–20 of 109 posts
Re: Just Scroll
#12I hope nobody ever thinks this is a good idea.
Re: Just Scroll
#13Now multiply by 120 million... and that's why download rates from .jp are so damn low.
Re: Just Scroll
#14I hope nobody ever thinks this is a good idea.
Why? I thought it was interesting.
Re: Just Scroll
#15For anyone wondering, that's about 135 jpgs at ~100KB on average.
It's 29.3MB according to firebug.
Which, in the age of video, isn't really that much.
Re: Just Scroll
#16The irregular intervals at which you scroll your mouse produces a stop-motion type effect :).
Re: Just Scroll
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
viewing the source seems to indicate that it is, in fact, just an endless array of divs. (disclaimer: I don't actually know any html, just how to click 'view source' in Chrome)
"I don't actually know any html, just how to click 'view source' in Chrome" That's a bit strange for someone that visits hacker news!
Then let this be the moment where you realize not everyone on HN is a web developer.
Some of them are painters.
Re: Just Scroll
#18Having open quite a few tabs before it killed my Firefox.
Re: Just Scroll
#19Amazing visuals. I have no idea if the idea scales. Technically might be a bit PITA. The sensation of time. Passing. Wait, what? The modular decomposition. Birdseye flight sequnece. Functional redundancy. An innovation communication language? Dunno. Pity about the ad-part =D
Edit: pls, though. not in the wrong hands.
Re: Just Scroll
#20For anyone wondering, that's about 135 jpgs at ~100KB on average.
It's 29.3MB according to firebug. Which, in the age of video, isn't really that much.
A 29.3MB video runs multiple minutes - so long as your available bandwidth is above a relatively generous minimum, the experience will be smooth and uninterrupted.
I'd wager that the average person would burn through this 29.3MB faster than it can be downloaded, considering how fast you'd be scrolling.