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

161–170 of 392 posts

Re: 1MB Club

#161

Post by m90 »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #154
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.

I know it sucks waiting for a website to load, but it's not like your life depends on it. You can still be an overall happy person while doing so, time is not "lost".

Performance metrics are better when put into perspective.

Re: 1MB Club

#163

Post by crazygringo »

I don't mind highlighting and curating small sites for fun, that's neat.

But calling larger sites a "cancerous growth on the web" just feels immature to me. Everything is just cost/benefit. There's no need to bring a black-and-white fanatical exaggerated mindset to it.

You can celebrate something you like without having to make the alternative a disease, sheesh.

Re: 1MB Club

#164

Post by mintone »

I believe this is placing emphasis on entirely the wrong thing.

Page size does not matter. Render time/time 'til functional does.

Stripe.com is 1.2MB fully loaded but is pretty much all non blocking so it feels as fast as a very small site. By the time you've scrolled to the bottom of the homepage it's loaded >2MB. The convert pretty well, and my experience is that Stripe knows what they are doing better than most. So what should we be optimising for? Total page size? or a lightning fast experience with non-blocking content which can be as big as we require?

IMO developers need to optimise for building fast sites, not light ones for the sake of being light.

Re: 1MB Club

#165

Post by asenna »

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #140

What's an easy way to measure total resources downloaded for a page?

On Firefox you can open up the console (right click -> Inspect Element), head to the "Network" tab and check the very bottom of that panel. It should give you details on how much time it took and the size of your request. You can refresh your page and it refreshes the data at the bottom as well.

I believe it should be similar on Chrome and Safari as well, just locate the Network tab in the browser console.

Re: 1MB Club

#166

Post by manjana »

Would love to see a 1MB club for websites where there was a requirement they would have to make use of both FA, CSS & JS all at once. Or perhaps a 1MB SPA club.

This is interesting though. Wonder what the average newly founded website sits at these days.

Re: 1MB Club

#168

Post by libria »

jyriand wrote: post #80
syassami wrote: post #53

My personal fav: 148kb, $530B company. https://www.berkshirehathaway.com

Just for your information, from their legal page: "...linking to this website without written permission is prohibited." Not sure what is meant by this, but I found it funny.

That same sentence starts (paraphrasing) "[Copying or giving out of any stuff gotten on this domain ... is banned]" so merely quoting the legal terms is also "illegal".

Re: 1MB Club

#169

Post by tonymet »

mintone wrote: post #164

I believe this is placing emphasis on entirely the wrong thing. Page size does not matter. Render time/time 'til functional does. Stripe.com is 1.2MB fully loaded but is pretty much all non blocking so it feels as fast as a very small site. By the time you've scrolled to the bottom of the homepage it's loaded >2MB. The convert pretty well, and my experience is that Stripe knows what they are doing better than most. S…

1.2mb will only be fast on fast hardware and a fast network. You’re not accounting for p90 load times. Targeting small page size is a better indicator of audience wide performance

Re: 1MB Club

#170

Post by pketh »

mintone wrote: post #164

I believe this is placing emphasis on entirely the wrong thing. Page size does not matter. Render time/time 'til functional does. Stripe.com is 1.2MB fully loaded but is pretty much all non blocking so it feels as fast as a very small site. By the time you've scrolled to the bottom of the homepage it's loaded >2MB. The convert pretty well, and my experience is that Stripe knows what they are doing better than most. S…

yar, maybe it should've been about js size, ideally closer to the 200kb-of-js club
Post reply on HN