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

1MB Club

1mb.club

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 392 posts

Re: 1MB Club

#151

Post by im3w1l »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #141
chrisin2d wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work for a major e-commerce company and will back this up. The importance of performance, of course, depends on the use case. In e-commerce, the biggest factors (that come to mind) to compete on are—SEO and brand aside—price, offerings, and convenience. Convenience has two dimensions: UX and performance. If a user has a very clear idea of what they want from your site, they'll probably be patient. If a user…

I totally believe that the vast majority of page views are from channel surfing (or bots), but have a hard time believing that has any correlation to actual purchases. If I'm spending an hour's pay on something I really want, of course I'll wait 10 seconds for the page to load, or if I can't get it to load at all, I'll make a note to try again later from different browser or internet connection. I'll manually enter m…

Maybe it's people who know kind of what they want, but not exactly. Let's say you want a vacuum cleaner you go to a few different websites and check about 20 models on each site. One one site every time you check a model you have to wait 10 seconds. You might give up early on that site.

Re: 1MB Club

#152

Post by userbinator »

bnchrch wrote: post #45

Ahh let the bikeshedding continue. In these situations all I want to say is "Who cares". Optimization matters when it actually solves a problem, before that it's just wasted effort. I don't hear the general public yelling from the rooftops "The web is too slow! Developers are building too fast! I wish we could go backwards!"

To be frank, that's probably because you're not listening.

YouTube redesign, Twitter redesign, and one other huge site I can't remember at the moment all had plenty of complaints about how much slower --- and less featured --- they were. The average user doesn't know a static page has been replaced with a bloated SPA, but can sure feel the difference.

The web has declined for sure, and it's precisely because of ignorant developers with attitudes like yours.

Re: 1MB Club

#153

Post by charlesdaniels »

highmastdon wrote: post #130
yellowapple wrote: post #92

I love it! I feel like the 1MB limit is excessively generous, especially for text-only pages. But maybe that's what makes it so damning when pages fail to adhere to it. I know at least one website I maintain fails it spectacularly (though in my defense it's entirely because of that website being chock-full of photos, and full-res ones at that; pages without those are well under that 1MB mark), while other sites I've…

Don’t forget that also 1MB of JavaScript is much much more heavy on the client than 1MB image

At the risk of over-complicating things, perhaps there could be limits per resource type. 10Mb of images might be reasonable (e.g. for a photojournal), but only 128KB of JS, and 128KB for everything else. Something along those lines.

Re: 1MB Club

#154

Post by ajsnigrutin »

m90 wrote: post #125

Stylistic nitpick: don't use the word cancerous for things that don't make too much of a difference for anything but your "ethos". Real cancer has people die (animals too). Bloated websites might be annoying, but you will survive them even if your the 1337est hacker around.

The problem with bloated website is, that the cumulative time lost while waiting for them to load is (for many) measured in many, many years. Pages like google/facebook/... optimizing load time by a couple of hundredths of a second, means years of real people time saved.

Re: 1MB Club

#155

Post by vaccinator »

tutfbhuf wrote: post #17
SimeVidas wrote: post #3

100 KB of images is not the same as 100 KB of JavaScript. You could technically still create a website that is a 1 KB HTML document that loads almost 1 MB of JavaScript, which is definitely too much.

How about WebAssembly? Whats your size limit for that?

Should be 0kb for that

Re: 1MB Club

#156

Post by mokkol »

bnchrch wrote: post #45

Ahh let the bikeshedding continue. In these situations all I want to say is "Who cares". Optimization matters when it actually solves a problem, before that it's just wasted effort. I don't hear the general public yelling from the rooftops "The web is too slow! Developers are building too fast! I wish we could go backwards!"

I always think, the one feature everybody wants is speed. The same page but faster is always better.

Re: 1MB Club

#157

Post by somurzakov »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #90
stickfigure wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're offering a service that is so uncompelling or so undifferentiated that the page load speed is a driving factor, than you should certainly focus on page load speed. On the other hand, Gmail regularly takes 10s+ to load and yet most users are glued to it. If you're a SaaS business, your marketing page is probably not your app. The people using your app care about usability, and page load speed is rarely the d…

I hear you saying that if my service is compelling enough, people will tolerate the horrendous page loads.

hahaha, brilliant

Re: 1MB Club

#158

Post by im3w1l »

stickfigure wrote: post #78
thesuitonym wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because anyone who complains is given this treatment. We don't complain to everybody we just bounce.

If you're offering a service that is so uncompelling or so undifferentiated that the page load speed is a driving factor, than you should certainly focus on page load speed. On the other hand, Gmail regularly takes 10s+ to load and yet most users are glued to it. If you're a SaaS business, your marketing page is probably not your app. The people using your app care about usability, and page load speed is rarely the d…

Maybe the initial load is 10+s, but clicking into and out of emails is fast, and that is what matters. If that took 10s it would be unusable.

Re: 1MB Club

#159

Post by userbinator »

krapp wrote: post #143
geodel wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If general public even knew who to complain they would have surely yelled loudly. For now I hear non-tech people say 'Oh, our internet is slow even though we pay lot of money' Meanwhile valley bros keep helpfully reminding me to upgrade my computer to a reasonable 2020sh.

The general public likes to do things on the web other than reading minimalist hypertext. They like real-time chat and video and images and playing games in the browser. They would rather be able to do the things they like faster and more efficiently than abandon the last 20 years of technological progress.

I had real-time video chat and played browser games 15 years ago, on hardware a fraction of the power of that today.

It seems a lot of the newer generation just doesn't realise what was already possible before, and is only infatuated with inefficient reinventions.

Re: 1MB Club

#160

Post by SilasX »

charlesdaniels wrote: post #153
highmastdon wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t forget that also 1MB of JavaScript is much much more heavy on the client than 1MB image

At the risk of over-complicating things, perhaps there could be limits per resource type. 10Mb of images might be reasonable (e.g. for a photojournal), but only 128KB of JS, and 128KB for everything else. Something along those lines.

Yeah I was surprised they included pictures in the limit at all -- I mean, sometimes, you need those pictures, and for them to load slower is less important so long as you don't need them to navigate the page.
Post reply on HN