14kB, what is that? I thought the web had a minimal file size of the entire original DOOM game.
A 14kb page can load much faster than a 15kb page
241–250 of 356 posts
Re: A 14kb page can load much faster than a 15kb page
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t have a citation handy, but this is something that Google has famously studied. They claimed years ago that a tiny increase in the loading time of the Google home page led to a measurable decrease in the number of searches (like, a few percent). Not everyone is operating “at Google scale”, of course, but in aggregate the effect is real and faster-loading pages have better metrics. So, most satellite internet u…
most satellite internet users won’t give up just because your page is slow My point is that 'slow' is a relative measure against other websites, not an objective value. So long as your website is faster than a typical website then users won't give up. Trying to be faster than average is worthwhile, but trying to be as fast as possible might not bring any additional value. It's also possible (likely, in my opinion) th…
https://danluu.com/ loads super-fast for some reason. I definitely noticed it. I bookmarked this blog partly because it loads so quickly.
Re: A 14kb page can load much faster than a 15kb page
#243I'm getting 62 bytes over the network and 31.4 kilobytes uncompressed. This page has more content than most pages I visit that are megabytes in size. I wish there was an incentive to go back to smaller web pages in general.
62 bytes is surely not right :) I see your 31.4kb uncompressed, but 9.6kb over the wire.
Folks, b is bits, B is bytes. For someone who deals with IT/telecomm the careless use of bits, bytes, B, b, kB/s, kb/s, kbps, MiB/s, Gbit is a source of confusion, because all those abbreviations have a very specific and distinct meaning.
And whenever someone writes something not very obvious (eg Gbit for line speed, or kb for a size of a file or network transfer chunk), I need to figure out if they don't understand the terms they use, and I should use the more likely meaning, or they know what they're talking about and I assume they really meant what they'd written.
Re: A 14kb page can load much faster than a 15kb page
#244It's true but not realistic as soon as the website is more than a blog or a static content website. The goal of good web building is to manage to deliver the most value to consumers and the business, and removing what's not needed, and if you add anything, you make it on a performance oriented way. Bloat will always infiltrates itself, so you must clean again and again. I operate e-commerce websites and we went throu…
The goal of good web building is to manage to deliver the most value to ~~consumers and the business~~ the shareholders.
FTFY. That is why they are packed full of ads.
Re: A 14kb page can load much faster than a 15kb page
#245Does this mean your website should also only use HTTP for maximum speed.
I guess so. The OP replied and said yes, but he's banned for being an anti-semite and a COVID minimizer, so I'll say it again for those who have dead comments hidden.
It's a shame that you can't have both speed and security. One possibility is to have a subdomain, insecure.blah.com, that doesn't redirect to HTTPS by default.
Re: A 14kb page can load much faster than a 15kb page
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's fairly obvious that a faster website is better. I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that there is a point where improving your website when it's already better than competing websites stops giving you enough value to be worthwhile. If you're in the bottom half of websites then you're giving up money and you need to improve. If you're in the top half, or top quarter, or whatever then maybe that eng…
>What I'm saying is that there is a point where improving your website when it's already better than competing websites stops giving you enough value to be worthwhile. There's indeed a point where optimizations stop yielding meaningful results, but it is certainly not connected to the performance of competitor websites. As soon as an user lands on your website, only its own performance and accessibility matters and p…
Not competing website but other average website in general. Say that averagely HN load for 1000ms and it's positioned around top 15% fastest. And if your website load for 1100 ~ 1200ms will be okay. OP's point is, if you're able to speed up to range of 800 ~ 900ms it may not resulting in much higher conversion.
However if your site is at 1800ms range it's worthwhile to increase to 1200ms range
Re: A 14kb page can load much faster than a 15kb page
#247It's true but not realistic as soon as the website is more than a blog or a static content website. The goal of good web building is to manage to deliver the most value to consumers and the business, and removing what's not needed, and if you add anything, you make it on a performance oriented way. Bloat will always infiltrates itself, so you must clean again and again. I operate e-commerce websites and we went throu…
I’m from Philippines I wonder what your e-commerce does. But I agree there is no decent web hosting here.
We sell fine food (bowtieduck.com ). Saw you are from Cebu we just opened deliveries there ;) and yes web hosting is weird and super expensive here.
Re: A 14kb page can load much faster than a 15kb page
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t have a citation handy, but this is something that Google has famously studied. They claimed years ago that a tiny increase in the loading time of the Google home page led to a measurable decrease in the number of searches (like, a few percent). Not everyone is operating “at Google scale”, of course, but in aggregate the effect is real and faster-loading pages have better metrics. So, most satellite internet u…
Amazon has publicly stated that every 100ms in additional loading time leads to 1% loss in revenue. For the scale of Amazon, that is massive
Was it linear though? I understand how you can lose 50% revenue by 5 seconds delay per click. But thinking that this has no “breakpoints” is naive.
Also, personally when shopping for e.g. jeans and tshirts I’d rather just wait for all items (json) and thumbnails to load (they can do that in bg except for the first page) and then filter/search/pagination would work instantly. You can lose half a hour in total by dealing with these shitty filtering sidebars which reload everything every time. Why aren’t e-shops then just semi-local apps over an on-demand synchronizable full-blown localstorage db? Nobody does this sort of precaching. Do they know how much revenue they are losing? It doesn’t add up.
Re: A 14kb page can load much faster than a 15kb page
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
1MB per photo is massive. Its easy to compress photos down to 100KB or less.
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:…
> JPEG XL is intended for high quality images, so it is not optimized for this kind of extremely low bitrate (~0.1 bpp) usage.
It's better than AVIF at low bitrates. I did a comparison of the latest builds 3 months ago, and was amazed that JPEG XL has more detail than AVIF at 0.05-0.1 bpp (~120KB 1080p). It's a bit subtle, but I could see it. Once browsers ship full support (at least Firefox + Chrome), I'll be on board.
Re: A 14kb page can load much faster than a 15kb page
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
3000x2000 basically means "fullscreen on a retina display @ full resolution". You can only reasonably show one picture like that at a time. So it's completely OK to have the currently displayed picture at that resolution/size. 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.
I know lazy loading is in vogue, but as a user it only ever seems to create problems for me. I’d much rather the website download all the images ahead of time on page load, so I don’t have to wait for full quality versions each time I full screen a different image.
This is the restaurant equivalent of : "We are at an all you can eat buffet, let me take 10 plates even if I only realistically will eat 4, so that if I want any more I don't have to stand up again".