I would think that a collective concerned with such an award would take the care to ensure their own "small" website works well on mobile, both in terms of performance and presentation. As already noted, the site is quite bloated and, on my phone at least, the end of most lines of text is cut off due to insufficient spacing.
Tiny Awards for Small Websites
21–30 of 84 posts
Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. About 1.7 MB of JavaScript (yeah, less across the wire) to do literally nothing interactive , and have a janky, ridiculously-scaled document where everything is the same shade of blue, links are not distinguished in any way, and a decorative image even collides with the text in one place. The whole thing should have been under 20KB of pure HTML, SVG and CSS. Found a tracker in it that the usual uBlock Origin lis…
We will do a https://1kb.club/ site next year.
I guess this is one way to take in criticism.
The fact remains that this page delivers around ~3kB of actual data out of 1.9MB (~682kB compressed).
This is 0.001% (0.004%) of meaningful data, surrounded by bells, whistles and tracking cookies.
"No, it's the children who are wrong."
Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites
#23Is this some kind of joke?
This "tiny" web page loads content from 8 other sites. The html of the page is 122k big.
Add to that more than a megabyte of useless javascript frameworks.
Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites
#24To me the idea of a small web is a great one. But then for some reason everyone equates small with "static builder" and before you know it you're into a hellscape of complexity with static site builders, SPAs and other madness.
What happened to "I'll edit this .html file and FTP it up, with maybe a light sprinkling of CSS and js for any interactive elements"? Why did devs get obsessed with a deeply complex jamstack type thing to do even incredibly simple sites?
It's like a sort of "iceberg web" - small on the surface but hiding a mountain of complexity and dependencies under the surface.
Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites
#25Thanks for the feature. We made the website with https://build.mmm.page/ . It is the most fun wysiwyg builder I have used. Highly recommend it, bugs included.
Why?
It’s text with some images. Even Word could do this better.
Frontpage would be a massive improvement.
Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites
#26Ironic that this website is so awful; can't remember seeing a page that has links that are indistinguishable from regular text.
Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites
#27Is this some kind of joke? This "tiny" web page loads content from 8 other sites. The html of the page is 122k big. Add to that more than a megabyte of useless javascript frameworks.
In their defense they implied that the award was tiny, and that the award was for tiny websites… there was no implication that their own website was (or need be) tiny.
That’s notwithstanding the fact that tiny in scope != tiny in size.
Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
We will do a https://1kb.club/ site next year.
I’m sure this is in jest, but it truly is baffling that this purely informational webpage is so massive. I believe the “small” web is more than being an independent entity and instead also should avoid wasted resources. Developers need to respect their end users’ bandwidth and time. Just my two cents.
Ironically “just my two cents” is a waste of both bandwidth and time.
Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m sure this is in jest, but it truly is baffling that this purely informational webpage is so massive. I believe the “small” web is more than being an independent entity and instead also should avoid wasted resources. Developers need to respect their end users’ bandwidth and time. Just my two cents.
Ironically “just my two cents” is a waste of both bandwidth and time.
* breathes *
* grunts *
* breathes *
Re: Tiny Awards for Small Websites
#30To me the idea of a small web is a great one. But then for some reason everyone equates small with "static builder" and before you know it you're into a hellscape of complexity with static site builders, SPAs and other madness. What happened to "I'll edit this .html file and FTP it up, with maybe a light sprinkling of CSS and js for any interactive elements"? Why did devs get obsessed with a deeply complex jamstack t…
imo using your language of choice as an html templating engine that serves your "static" files is the best choice - you can essentially be left with editign css/js and html files but if you have some neat feature you want to add you can implement it and start taking advantage of the templates to interpolate your new stuff. Keeps your clients small and it's up to you to keep it simple or add what ever giant frameworks you want.