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

A 14kb page can load much faster than a 15kb page

endtimes.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 356 posts

Re: A 14kb page can load much faster than a 15kb page

#161

Post by fvold »

johnchristopher wrote: post #107
onion2k wrote: post #95

I wonder if anyone has studied the impact of latency on user behavior while considering the impact of user expectations from their typical connection speed. Whenever I see an article about page speed optimization, the assumption is that a user will give up if a page takes too long to load, ans that everyone gives up after X seconds. Usually X is about 7s based on a Nielson article from years and years ago. The thing…

> I wonder if anyone has studied the impact of latency on user behavior while considering the impact of user expectations from their typical connection speed. Whenever I see an article about page speed optimization, the assumption is that a user will give up if a page takes too long to load, ans that everyone gives up after X seconds. Usually X is about 7s based on a Nielson article from years and years ago. N=1 but…

N=2

Re: A 14kb page can load much faster than a 15kb page

#162

Post by worldofmatthew »

bscphil wrote: post #129
worldofmatthew wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1MB per photo is massive. Its easy to compress photos down to 100KB or less.

This is simply false, even if you mean using AVIF. Here's a test case, using a moderate sized (3000x2000) image. Nothing ridiculously huge or anything, and it's not an especially complex image. I'm linking the best I can do for both JPEG (at 200 KB) and AVIF (at 100 KB). If you can create a passable versions of these images at 100 KB with either codec (or WEBP for that matter), please do show us how. Original image:…

I normally deal with 720P images for internet distribution. For 3000x2000 that would be around 230KB to 250KB.

Re: A 14kb page can load much faster than a 15kb page

#163

Post by bmacho »

worldofmatthew wrote: post #117
NavinF wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wat. 1MB per photo is tiny when the photo is the content. You need ~100KB for a high quality 512x512 WebP. AVIF will be slightly better but still doesn’t have universal support. We’ve had 4K (8MP) screens for a decade now and normal DSLRs shoot 25MP so you can zoom in.

Bandwidth is extremely carbon intensive. Someone viewing a couple of few 25MP images online could use 20g to 100g of CO2 (depending on compression).

And who pays for that?

Re: A 14kb page can load much faster than a 15kb page

#164

Post by cosarara »

worldofmatthew wrote: post #147
ttoinou wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source ?

https://www.emergeinteractive.com/insights/detail/does-irres... In the US as of 2020, it was 3KG CO2 per GB Data.

I don't agree with the reasoning presented. It takes the estimate for the amount of energy that it takes to run the internet infrastructure and clients (141GW * 8765h in a year = 1235865 GWh), divides it by the amount of data transferred yearly (241 billion GB) and gets to 5.12kWh/GB.

You might argue that if people download more data, more equipment needs to run to enable it, but really all this energy consumption is happening regardless of my PC being idle or saturating its fiber pipes with torrents. If your website weights 14kb, all this same equipment needs to be on for my PC to load it.

Re: A 14kb page can load much faster than a 15kb page

#166

Post by cuu508 »

bscphil wrote: post #129
worldofmatthew wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1MB per photo is massive. Its easy to compress photos down to 100KB or less.

This is simply false, even if you mean using AVIF. Here's a test case, using a moderate sized (3000x2000) image. Nothing ridiculously huge or anything, and it's not an especially complex image. I'm linking the best I can do for both JPEG (at 200 KB) and AVIF (at 100 KB). If you can create a passable versions of these images at 100 KB with either codec (or WEBP for that matter), please do show us how. Original image:…

Downsize the 3000x2000 to the dimensions it will be displayed at and you will be able to go below 100KB.

Re: A 14kb page can load much faster than a 15kb page

#167

Post by bscphil »

cuu508 wrote: post #166
bscphil wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is simply false, even if you mean using AVIF. Here's a test case, using a moderate sized (3000x2000) image. Nothing ridiculously huge or anything, and it's not an especially complex image. I'm linking the best I can do for both JPEG (at 200 KB) and AVIF (at 100 KB). If you can create a passable versions of these images at 100 KB with either codec (or WEBP for that matter), please do show us how. Original image:…

Downsize the 3000x2000 to the dimensions it will be displayed at and you will be able to go below 100KB.

What if it will be displayed at 3000x2000? I mean that's the whole conversation here, we're talking about images that are the focus point of the page.

Re: A 14kb page can load much faster than a 15kb page

#168

Post by alpaca128 »

johnchristopher wrote: post #133
soperj wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's what this blog post is about isn't it?

No, it's not. edit: No, it's not. It deals with TCP window but in no way does it deal with customers conversion, retention rates and all those things.

> in no way does it deal with customers conversion, retention rates and all those things.

Those metrics would only be meaningful if the average visitor knew how fast websites and computers can be, and if there are well-known alternatives to your site. Having standards is preferrable to aiming for mediocrity imho.

YouTube probably has decent retention rates but it's a bloated pile of UX hell that people use for a lack of alternatives. Maybe that's why Google manages to make it even worse over time without realising they're digging a second Mariana trench of quality.

Re: A 14kb page can load much faster than a 15kb page

#169

Post by maratc »

allanrbo wrote: post #122

Love how this person's blog itself consist of single HTTP requests per page load. No extra css, images, scripts, or anything! This blogger cares about web perf!

And that single HTTP request is 9.5Kb in size. The guy seems to be practicing what he preaches!

Re: A 14kb page can load much faster than a 15kb page

#170

Post by onion2k »

hackernewds wrote: post #152
iainmerrick wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t have a citation handy, but this is something that Google has famously studied. They claimed years ago that a tiny increase in the loading time of the Google home page led to a measurable decrease in the number of searches (like, a few percent). Not everyone is operating “at Google scale”, of course, but in aggregate the effect is real and faster-loading pages have better metrics. So, most satellite internet u…

Amazon has publicly stated that every 100ms in additional loading time leads to 1% loss in revenue. For the scale of Amazon, that is massive

That's a claim that they made in 2006. Could there be a reason why Amazon said that a slow website would have a massive impact on ecommerce sales back then? Was there some other Amazon product that would greatly benefit from people believing they had to use the fastest hosting service possible for their online store?

Coincidently, AWS also launched in 2006.

Post reply on HN