211–220 of 392 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I was surprised they included pictures in the limit at all -- I mean, sometimes, you need those pictures, and for them to load slower is less important so long as you don't need them to navigate the page.
You dont really need full size/resolution images on a web page.
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.
With all due respect. Modern news websites are a disease, and I find it pretty hard to disagree with the nomer cancerous growth since the behavior is spreading, and normalized by these websites. There is zero benefit to me in loading 20mb of garbage just so I can read 10kb of text.
The culture change around the importance of performance is frustrating, new developers all seem to love their massive JavaScript libraries. Giving a trivial function such as search box on a webpage or some animation results in a convoluted 10MB JavaScript monster from hell. If they run into anything remotely challenging they'll simply add a library to do it for them creating more bloat. It used to be the opposite. Wh…
The culture change around the importance of performance is frustrating, new developers all seem to love their massive JavaScript libraries. Giving a trivial function such as search box on a webpage or some animation results in a convoluted 10MB JavaScript monster from hell. If they run into anything remotely challenging they'll simply add a library to do it for them creating more bloat. It used to be the opposite. Wh…
And yes, doing anything mildly responsive with jquery is too hard. And not in the "I don't know how to do this" way. Its just a huge waste of time. What takes 100 lines of jquery code can be done for free with jsx. Usually jquery sites settle for sub optimal UX because its too hard to do the things react sites do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In these situations all I want to say is "Who cares". This list has a second hidden benefit: Typically, I find that those who have very lightweight pages have more interesting things to say. That being said, that's not a hard and fast rule, as I both have a lightweight page, and not much that's interesting to say.
This is also true for how the site 'looks'. The less flashier, the more interesting the content might be to read. They don't bother about SEO/clicks
Site: http://packet.city/
Nice to know of CNN lite, had never heard of it before.
Indeed. Also, much less of an attention sink, and lynx-friendly. Are there more news websites like this?
1MB in size feels like an attempt to define “performant” without considering... performance. A speed test from an “average” connection that also measures first paint etc. would be much more meaningful: not all megabytes are equal. I love the idea, just needs a better measurement.
The culture change around the importance of performance is frustrating, new developers all seem to love their massive JavaScript libraries. Giving a trivial function such as search box on a webpage or some animation results in a convoluted 10MB JavaScript monster from hell. If they run into anything remotely challenging they'll simply add a library to do it for them creating more bloat. It used to be the opposite. Wh…
If you want great UI and UX, these are anything but trivial. This is why taking an off the shelf solution is preferable to reinventing the wheel in the pursuit of marginal improvements of speed (not mentioning 3rd party solutions are often still faster than what you could whip up in a day or 2).
I guess the leader is missing "packet.city" an entire website in a single TCP packet weighing in at 1.2kb Site: http://packet.city/ Source: https://github.com/diracdeltas/FastestWebsiteEver