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

The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install

mobiforge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 467 posts

Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install

#111

Post by JustSomeNobody »

d33 wrote: post #49
jessriedel wrote: post #15

I'm skeptical that developers talking to each other about how bad web bloat is will change anything. They will still face the same incentives in terms of ad revenue, costs of optimization, etc. Here's a random idea that might have more potential: create an adblocker browser plugin that also colors URLs based on how slow they are expected to load, e.g., smoothly from blue to red. The scores could be centrally calculat…

I would say that a possible solution is also to better rank websites that mention the checksums of their external resources and make web browsers keep them in cache much longer... if pretty much every website uses jQuery, perhaps we should ship jQuery with the web browser?

We absolutely, most certainly, should NOT ship libraries with browsers. This is a horrible idea. Browser vendors would then have too much influence on development libraries.

Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install

#112

Post by Tenhundfeld »

artificial wrote: post #87
Tenhundfeld wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, very cool, thanks for sharing. I'm familiar with a lot of the tools for evaluating the performance of a single site (e.g., that I'm developing), but I'm pretty ignorant of the standard approaches for these types of larger scale benchmarking projects.

If you're developing you may not be aware of Page Speed Insights, extremely handy for SEO. https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/

I actually wasn't aware that the site could also perform the test, but the Page Speed Insights Chrome extension is one of my go-to performance tools. The output looks the same, though formatted a little better in some places. The extension is nice though, because it lets you check private sites.

Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install

#113

Post by lolive »

d33 wrote: post #96
kevincox wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear this argument a lot, and I very much disagree. Now you have browser vendors having to device which libraries are "popular" and shipping them in the initial download of the browser. It turns out that this technology already exists in a much better form. It's called cache. The problem is that almost everyone hosts their own version of jQuery. If everyone simply linked the "canonical" version of jQuery (the CDN l…

The problem with caching is that you're sharing the referer with the canonical URL. Another problem is that you're using someone else's bandwidth. And if you combine the two, you can be sure that info about your visitors will be sold, which is why quite a lot of people would prefer to host their own versions of jQuery...

Couldn't the HTTP cache of your ISP be a good in-betweener, in that case? Would he send the referer to the canonical URL?

Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install

#115

Post by spriggan3 »

The average data plan here is 10GB :

1,000,000 * 10 / 2250 = 4444 web pages a month

4444 / 31 = 143 web pages a day at most on mobile.

While it is somehow acceptable, I don't see data plans getting cheaper yet the size of the average webpage is raising fast.

It doesn't seem like most websites have heavily invested in using HTML5 offline capabilities or actual mobile first design either, something easy to check with chrome dev tools.

Also let's talk about ads : Polygon.com a site I visit often , first article on the homepage with an Iphone 5 :

- with ads/trackers 1.5mb - without ads 623kb

More than half of the load is ad/tracking related. This isn't normal.

Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install

#116

Post by AnkhMorporkian »

newjersey wrote: post #104
kevincox wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear this argument a lot, and I very much disagree. Now you have browser vendors having to device which libraries are "popular" and shipping them in the initial download of the browser. It turns out that this technology already exists in a much better form. It's called cache. The problem is that almost everyone hosts their own version of jQuery. If everyone simply linked the "canonical" version of jQuery (the CDN l…

What if the checksum was the same and you accepted the cache hit if the checksum agrees and get your own copy if it doesn't? Maybe the application should get to declare a canonical URL for the js file instead of the browser? So something like https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.12.2/jquery.m... sha-256="31be012d5df7152ae6495decff603040b3cfb949f1d5cf0bf5498e9fc117d546"> Would this cause more problems than i…

> I'm concerned about people like me who use noscript selectively. How easy is it to create a malicious file that matches the checksum of a known file?

SHA-256? Very, very, very, very hard. I don't believe there are any known attacks for collisions for SHA-256.

Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install

#118

Post by oldmanjay »

stegosaurus wrote: post #57

If web bloat is a problem, I don't think that looking at whether can be removed is the answer. I suggest that at the moment, we have basically two camps of website, with rough, fuzzy boundaries. 1. A place where someone sticks up an insight, or posts a wiki page, or whatever, to share some thought to others (if anyone actually cares). The blogs of many users of HN. Hacker News itself. Wikipedia. The Arch Linux Wiki.…

With stories like these, you have to know where to find the real problem. At least some percentage can be ignored whenever nerds use the word "bloat" because it's a code word for "the only things that should be allowed are things I approve" in a surprisingly large number of contexts.

Re: The average size of Web pages is now the average size of a Doom install

#119

Post by rmc »

d33 wrote: post #49
jessriedel wrote: post #15

I'm skeptical that developers talking to each other about how bad web bloat is will change anything. They will still face the same incentives in terms of ad revenue, costs of optimization, etc. Here's a random idea that might have more potential: create an adblocker browser plugin that also colors URLs based on how slow they are expected to load, e.g., smoothly from blue to red. The scores could be centrally calculat…

I would say that a possible solution is also to better rank websites that mention the checksums of their external resources and make web browsers keep them in cache much longer... if pretty much every website uses jQuery, perhaps we should ship jQuery with the web browser?

> if pretty much every website uses jQuery, perhaps we should ship jQuery with the web browser?

There's a firefox plugin that does just that! DecentralEyes - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/decentraleyes...

Although mostly for privacy reasons, so google doesn't know all the sites you visit.

Post reply on HN