171–180 of 356 posts
I like the idea mentioned in the article of increasing the number of packets sent in the slow start - as far as I know you could just crank that from the server side TCP stack to something much larger, right?
content-length: 31367 for this page, so looks like the author couldn't do it either. How can us mere mortals ? A more realistic target: https://512kb.club/
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:…
I normally deal with 720P images for internet distribution. For 3000x2000 that would be around 230KB to 250KB.
In any event, I don't think the AVIF result at 250 KB is acceptable for photography either: https://0x0.st/o93a.avif - There's a ton of smearing and blurring that's very obvious when you're viewing the image at full size.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You computer will normally down-clock (you can turn this off in the bios) when under lighter loads.The difference between a JS-free webpage and a bloated web page that uses multiple JavaScript with extra Javascript for ads and tracking could be around 10W/H to 40W/H on Desktops.
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:…
I normally deal with 720P images for internet distribution. For 3000x2000 that would be around 230KB to 250KB.
But all photo should be loaded at a much lower size, initially, and only downloaded at full size the the user puts them in full screen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think a site where the key content is large (relative to text) can be expected to deliver that content super fast. However, quickly loading the bulk of the website and perhaps having a placeholder for the image that has yet to load will still make the site better. I remember seeing something that allowed you to create really blurry placeholders that are tiny, but I can't find it now.
Maybe it was [blurhash]( https://blurha.sh/ )?
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).
That's only doable with a text-centric website. I'm currently finishing a photography section for my personal website, and the gallery pages are several hundred kBs in size, while single photo page is almost 1MB in size (provided you load it on a 28" screen; browser will load smaller variants on smaller screens). Most of that weight is the thumbnails (and almost-full-size photo in the latter case). The only JS I have…
1MB per photo is fine. It's the content after all. Many sites today will load 10MB of JS and custom font crap alone, just to show a few paragraphs of text. I don't think the point is the size itself, but it's the content vs. bloat ratio.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The website usage on the client side is more to do with resource usage. Unnecessary usage of Javascript is often what makes websites laggy. You computer will normally down-clock (you can turn this off in the bios) when under lighter loads.The difference between a JS-free webpage and a bloated web page that uses multiple JavaScript with extra Javascript for ads and tracking could be around 10W/H to 40W/H on Desktops.
> Bandwidth is extremely carbon intensive.
and the reasoning that supports that statement.
