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

111–120 of 171 posts

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#111

Post by joevandyk »

danneu wrote: post #81
kuschku wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Want to download all the comments with the user info for every user? You have a choice between repeating the user info per comment, requesting the comments first then the users by id (two requests) or using a serialisation mechanism that supports object references (isn't pure JSON) Or you send it like { "users": [ { "id": "de305d54-75b4-431b-adb2-eb6b9e546014", "name": "Max Mustermann", "image": "https://news.ycomb…

Alternatively, I would think that gzip does a good job of factoring out repeatedly embedded user objects.

Don't forget it takes time to parse large json blobs.

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#112

Post by keeperofdakeys »

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?

For Firefox, the real comparisons are Request Policy and ublock (origin) in advanced mode (for chrome, umatrix). These do full third-party host whitelisting per domain. So every time you visit a website on a new domain, by default all requests to third parties are blocked. Then you spend a few minutes working out which ones are required.

By comparison, noscript simply blocks javascript from third parties. It does include a number of anti-xss heuristics though.

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#113

Post by robin_reala »

motoboi wrote: post #19

Coming from a low bandwidth, high latency part of the world, I can't confirm this enough. Today, I have 2 mbit and can use Netflix or Youtube just fine, but mere 4 years ago, I had 600k and, boy, that was hard. Hard as in loading youtube URL and go for a coffee. UPDATE: In case Duolingo developers are listening, please test your site on high latency and very low bandwidth scenarios. I just love your site, but lessons…

My train commute into work is the perfect place to brush up with Duolingo. Shame it randomly goes through patches of no signal, as this makes Duolingo fairly unusable. I have to time my practice to fit into the areas I know it’ll work in.

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#114

Post by jimworm »

lnanek2 wrote: post #39

Pretty funny story considering YouTube is back to unusable on slow connections. They used to buffer the full video, so you could load up a page, let it sit until the video buffers, then watch it eventually, maybe after reading your social news sites. Nowadays the buffering feature has been removed and you'll just come back, hit play, get a second or two of video, then it has nothing again for a long time. Feels bad f…

You can disable mediasource extensions in your browser to get the old download-it-all html5 video.

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#115

Post by rattray »

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. What is this and why does it exist?

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#116

Post by JustSomeNobody »

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.…

Unfortunately, computing has always been that way. Remember the mantra "Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away?". Developers quickly get spoiled with faster hardware, more bandwidth, more RAM, etc.

I'm not saying it's right. In fact, I would prefer if everyone took a look at their apps much like the author of the article. I'm just saying, this isn't a new phenomenon.

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#117

Post by Rumford »

dredmorbius wrote: post #110
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.

I'm increasingly of the mind that: 1. Advertising is the problem. It's creating technical problems. It's creating UI/UX problems. It's creating gobs of crap content. It's creating massive privacy intrusions and security risks. And for what? Buzzfeed? 2. Ultimately, the problem is the business model for compensating informational goods. Absent some alternative mechanism (broadband tax, federal income tax applied to cr…

Is it not an option to just stop visiting these sites?

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#119

Post by dredmorbius »

Rumford wrote: post #117
dredmorbius wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm increasingly of the mind that: 1. Advertising is the problem. It's creating technical problems. It's creating UI/UX problems. It's creating gobs of crap content. It's creating massive privacy intrusions and security risks. And for what? Buzzfeed? 2. Ultimately, the problem is the business model for compensating informational goods. Absent some alternative mechanism (broadband tax, federal income tax applied to cr…

Is it not an option to just stop visiting these sites?

Think of the children. I mean authors.

I'd like a system under which creators of quality content would be equitably and fairly compensated. The present system fails this.

Re: Page Weight Matters (2012)

#120

Post by dredmorbius »

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?

Putting hosts (and domains) under control of /etc/hosts and dnsmasq means that there's little likelihood of traffic reaching them from your browser (though Web hosts could provide back-end data transfers).

It's also possible to directly address hosts by IP, though unlikely (Web protocols such as virtualhosts would fail).

I'm strongly favouring uMatrix for now. It takes some tuning, but you have fine-grained control over CSS, images, scripts, XHR, frames, and other bits, by domain or host.

Aggregators and CDNs confound things a bit (Akamai, Amazon's cloudy thing.)

Post reply on HN