Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

1MB Club

1mb.club

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 392 posts

Re: 1MB Club

#271

Post by bnchrch »

Shared404 wrote: post #62
bnchrch wrote: post #45

Ahh 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!"

> 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 feels like both an anecdote and a straw man.

I can point to two blogs on either side that have a lot to offer.

Large bundle: https://www.joshwcomeau.com/

Small Bundle: https://www.eugenewei.com/

Re: 1MB Club

#272

Post by maxk42 »

stickfigure wrote: post #59
bnchrch wrote: post #45

Ahh 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!"

I hear my users constantly yelling for more features. Not one has complained about the page load (5mb uncompressed, plus a delay for auth to initialize). I'll keep listening to my users.

Interesting.

What I've found is that the users I have that complain are by far the minority of my users. They ask for every little whim, many of them conflicting. If I'd been listening to them my website would be a mess right now. Alexa top 5k. 7 million uniques / day. 550kb. Less than 2 years old.

Every time I implement a new feature, there is no significant change in my site's trajectory. Improving latency by adding an auto-scaler, however, has lead to a massive uptick in usage in the past 90 days.

Re: 1MB Club

#273

Post by bnchrch »

userbinator wrote: post #152
bnchrch wrote: post #45

Ahh 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!"

To be frank, that's probably because you're not listening. YouTube redesign, Twitter redesign, and one other huge site I can't remember at the moment all had plenty of complaints about how much slower --- and less featured --- they were. The average user doesn't know a static page has been replaced with a bloated SPA, but can sure feel the difference. The web has declined for sure, and it's precisely because of ignor…

I mean I don't like a lot of these redesigns. However, I think your mixing up correlation and causation.

Re: 1MB Club

#274

Post by jimmaswell »

Aeolun wrote: post #256
notJim wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Many websites are not news sites. In fact, I'd guess the vast majority. So this point doesn't feel relevant. 2) Sometimes things might be useful to people other than you. The world doesn't exist to cater to your needs, and referring to things that aren't exactly what you want as cancerous is childish.

In response to your second point, please tell me who benefits from the 20mb of cruft loaded when accessing the page? Aside from the marketing monkeys that put it all there in the first place?

The reader who gets to read the page for free in exchange for that marketing cruft being there.

Re: 1MB Club

#275

Post by scrooched_moose »

folmar wrote: post #225
scrooched_moose wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In theory yeah. In practice, 32 was about the best I ever managed and 24-26 was typical.

Re: 1MB Club

#276

Post by z3t4 »

highmastdon wrote: post #130
yellowapple wrote: post #92

I 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…

Don’t forget that also 1MB of JavaScript is much much more heavy on the client than 1MB image

Check out this app: https://webide.se/?disable=fonts,discoveryBar

It's over one hundred thousand lines of JavaScript code minified and Gziped into a 300KB bundle which should fully load in about 300ms on a decent computer.

Re: 1MB Club

#277

Post by username90 »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #141
chrisin2d wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work for a major e-commerce company and will back this up. The importance of performance, of course, depends on the use case. In e-commerce, the biggest factors (that come to mind) to compete on are—SEO and brand aside—price, offerings, and convenience. Convenience has two dimensions: UX and performance. If a user has a very clear idea of what they want from your site, they'll probably be patient. If a user…

I totally believe that the vast majority of page views are from channel surfing (or bots), but have a hard time believing that has any correlation to actual purchases. If I'm spending an hour's pay on something I really want, of course I'll wait 10 seconds for the page to load, or if I can't get it to load at all, I'll make a note to try again later from different browser or internet connection. I'll manually enter m…

Probably lots of people who are like the stories about women shopping. They go around looking at lots of different things they don't need to see if they find something but mostly don't buy. The more items they browse the more likely they are to find something they want and buy it.

Re: 1MB Club

#278

Post by mod »

Hopefully on-topic:

Can anyone recommend a drop-in, minimal stylesheet that will make basic HTML (without classes/ids) format well on both web and mobile?

In particular, by default stuff is really small on mobile screens, you have to zoom around.

Basically bootstrap, but more lightweight and without the effort of learning all the classnames etc.

Re: 1MB Club

#279

Post by z3t4 »

SilasX wrote: post #160
charlesdaniels wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the risk of over-complicating things, perhaps there could be limits per resource type. 10Mb of images might be reasonable (e.g. for a photojournal), but only 128KB of JS, and 128KB for everything else. Something along those lines.

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 could use SVG images.
Post reply on HN