[deleted]
1MB Club
221–230 of 392 posts
Re: 1MB Club
#222Stylistic nitpick: don't use the word cancerous for things that don't make too much of a difference for anything but your "ethos". Real cancer has people die (animals too). Bloated websites might be annoying, but you will survive them even if your the 1337est hacker around.
I can definitely imagine situations where being able to load a page quickly is indeed a matter of life or death. This is indeed part of the design rationale for the min css framework: https://mincss.com/index.html
> Min is used by over 65,000 people in 195+ countries, from North Korea to South Sudan to Mongolia to Somalia. Think your software is critical? Try a webapp keeping you alive in a warzone.
Now, whether or not this actually happens is a good question, but it does seem like a plausible possibility.
Re: 1MB Club
#223I checked out a Wordpress site I run, and it comes in at 374K, when I have put zero effort into optimizing it. I feel like 100K would be a far more meaningful bar to set for this kind of collection.
Re: 1MB Club
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
The surprise me feature has yielded some really good links! "Doom as a tool for system administration" [1], "What can you do with a slide rule?" [2], and of course some vintage 90s personal pages... some of which have been actively maintained to this day (!) [3] edit: that last page has some incredibly-detailed information about the various cars he's owned [4] [1]: https://www.cs.unm.edu/~dlchao/flake/doom/ [2]: http…
[1] Is actually a really cool idea. I thought it would just be a joke, but the article makes a good case for it, at least as a POC for a UI.
Also reworked for newer contexts:
Re: 1MB Club
#225In 2005 I had to fill in a form to request a page size exception for our election results map on the BBC News site. The page weight was going to be just a little under 400kb. At the time the size considered acceptable for the whole page (images and all) was 75kb.
kb or kB? Assuming kB and dialup, which was 83% of the US at the time (easiest stat to quickly find), that was a difference of about 23s vs 121s load time. Edit: Seems like the UK would have been about 50/50 around that time according to this article: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/broadband-o...
As far as my math goes 75k(b/B) on dialup (usual speed for that time is 56.6k) is either 1.3s or 10.6s. Either being acceptable at the time since browser loaded text first and rendered images when they came.
Re: 1MB Club
#226Ahh let the bikeshedding continue. In these situations all I want to say is "Who cares". Optimization matters when it actually solves a problem, before that it's just wasted effort. I don't hear the general public yelling from the rooftops "The web is too slow! Developers are building too fast! I wish we could go backwards!"
What about the problem of CO2 / MB ?
I dunno. That time the user spends waiting for the sluggish website downloading gigabytes of html is time they maybe don't spend reaching for that apple that was air freighted across the world to reach their fridge.
Flippant but I doubt there's any clear correlation between reducing the size of a web page and reducing overall CO2 emissions.
Re: 1MB Club
#227[deleted]
[deleted]
Re: 1MB Club
#228I love it! I feel like the 1MB limit is excessively generous, especially for text-only pages. But maybe that's what makes it so damning when pages fail to adhere to it. I know at least one website I maintain fails it spectacularly (though in my defense it's entirely because of that website being chock-full of photos, and full-res ones at that; pages without those are well under that 1MB mark), while other sites I've…
> I feel like the 1MB limit is excessively generous, especially for text-only pages.
No kidding. I just checked and the average text-only page on my blog well under 100kb. Even the image-heavy front page is under 1MB...
Re: 1MB Club
#229Here's a common example, from a FAANG company: 72mb and 367 requests to display around 2,000 characters of text. Maybe double that if you count the "hyperlinks." Single page applications are horrible, and oh-so-common. https://imgur.com/a/v2rud7T
72 millibits doesn't sound feasible for even the most minimalist of websites. ;)
Seriously though, this isn't just a "grammar" thing. If you don't know the difference between millibits and megabytes, you probably shouldn't post on the subject of page size (or anything else relating to bandwidth consumption / network performance).
Re: 1MB Club
#230My theory is more stuff almost directly means less user experience. More stuff always requires more design knowledge, which is an extremely scarce resource.