1MB Club • Hacker News Board

Re: 1MB Club

#171

Post by e12e » Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 8:57 PM UTC

KMnO4 wrote: post #97

soheil wrote: post #23

Interesting that a site that champions for performance has an ungodly favicon [0] that is 10x larger (15KB) than the page itself. [0] https://1mb.club/favicon.ico

I did a quick Google search and discovered that SVG favicons are valid in most browsers, so for fun I reduced it by 95% down to 886 bytes: https://output.jsbin.com/yudonidujo

Nicely done. Manual or automatic conversion?

Re: 1MB Club

#172

Post by donbrae » Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 8:59 PM UTC

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.

Those things are all great and probably far better optimised than your average should-be-static site serving bloat.

Re: 1MB Club

#173

Post by jefftk » Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 8:59 PM UTC

gandalfian wrote: post #116

War and Peace 1.3mb. Ah well, a two pager I guess.

This site is listing transfer size, so if you serve it with "Content-Encoding: gzip" (as you should) you should be all set.

Re: 1MB Club

#174

Post by alphachloride » Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 8:59 PM UTC

Existing search engines should add a query term to filter by page size.

Re: 1MB Club

#175

Post by jefftk » Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 9:02 PM UTC

GloriousKoji wrote: post #162

gandalfian wrote: post #116

War and Peace 1.3mb. Ah well, a two pager I guess.

Or we could zip it up and then use javascript to unzip it and display on the client side.

This is already built into the browser. Your browser sends "Accept-Encoding" listing what decoders it has (ex: "gzip, deflate, br"), and then the server may encode the body with any of them. If it does, it will send "Content-Encoding: gzip" or similar to indicate which it chose.

Re: 1MB Club

#176

Post by e12e » Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 9:02 PM UTC

susam wrote: post #50

How accurate is this list? I see it mentions that visiting https://danluu.com/ downloads only 9.1 kB but when I actually visit this website with Google Chrome, in the Developer Tools' Network tab, I see that a total of 21.7 kB is transferred. Name Status Type Size ------------ ------ -------- -------- danluu.com 200 document 2.5 kB analytics.js 200 script 18.9 kB collect 200 xhr 67 B favicon.ico 404 text/html 266 B S…

Nice page. I only miss Firefox reader mode on these simple pages (for my preffered font size, and dark mode). I wonder if it's possible to hint to the browser that it should be available, even if the mark-up is simple?

Ah, the late 90s and early 00s when we still had user.css (in a meaningful sense).

Re: 1MB Club

#177

Post by ravenstine » Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 9:03 PM UTC

It would be useful to tag or categorize those links. I can't imagine I'm the only one who won't click on some domain I don't recognize that doesn't suggest its purpose.

Re: 1MB Club

#178

Post by e12e » Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 9:05 PM UTC

Thanks, especially for:

https://john-doe.neocities.org/

I'm just looking at modern front end web again (we're using react, ant - and I've stockholmed myself into considering react with tailwind as a "lightweight" alternative... Nice to be reminded about truly simple html+css).

Re: 1MB Club

#179

Post by MoldovianDlite » Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 9:06 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #127

aresant wrote: post #58

From a "Why, who cares" perspective website (and app) speed are highly correlated with conversion and engagement. Google's headline research on the subject says "Improving your load time by 0.1s can boost conversion rates by 8%." Some add'l data, sourced by Neilsen Group below: - Google found that increasing the load time of its SERPs by half a second resulted in a 20% higher bounce rate. - Google found 53% of mobile…

If nobody cares, why did Google invest so much in amp ?

Manufacturing consent can be highly lucrative. It's even easier if your audience is primed to view products as necessarily reflecting consumer demand. Thankfully for Google et al, if you control the market actual demand is not important!

Re: 1MB Club

#180

Post by brudgers » Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 9:07 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #127

aresant wrote: post #58

From a "Why, who cares" perspective website (and app) speed are highly correlated with conversion and engagement. Google's headline research on the subject says "Improving your load time by 0.1s can boost conversion rates by 8%." Some add'l data, sourced by Neilsen Group below: - Google found that increasing the load time of its SERPs by half a second resulted in a 20% higher bounce rate. - Google found 53% of mobile…

If nobody cares, why did Google invest so much in amp ?

Alphabet cared. It cared about what corporations can care about, making money. It invested so much because there was a good return on investment and there was a lot of cash on hand wanting for investment and Amp was big enough to make use of enough cash in hand to be worth pursuing. With billions of cash on hand fixed overhead makes small investment not worth the bother. For Alphabet, a hundred million dollars is less than rounding error.