[dead]
The 49MB web page
301–310 of 389 posts
Re: The 49MB web page
#302Our developers managed to run around 750MB per website open once. They have put in ticket with ops that the server is slow and could we look at it. So we looked. Every single video on a page with long video list pre-loaded a part of it. The single reason the site didn't ran like shit for them is coz office had direct fiber to out datacenter few blocks away. We really shouldn't allow web developers more than 128kbit o…
[deleted]
Re: The 49MB web page
#303Our developers managed to run around 750MB per website open once. They have put in ticket with ops that the server is slow and could we look at it. So we looked. Every single video on a page with long video list pre-loaded a part of it. The single reason the site didn't ran like shit for them is coz office had direct fiber to out datacenter few blocks away. We really shouldn't allow web developers more than 128kbit o…
PSA for those who aren’t aware: Chromium/Firefox-based browsers have a Network tab in the developer tools where you can dial down your bandwidth to simulate a slower 3G or 4G connection. Combined with CPU throttling, it's a decent sanity check to see how well your site will perform on more modest setups.
Thanks, didn't know that. The '3G' speed comes out at 0.25 mbps which is about the same as the shared wifi in Pret.
Re: The 49MB web page
#304Our developers managed to run around 750MB per website open once. They have put in ticket with ops that the server is slow and could we look at it. So we looked. Every single video on a page with long video list pre-loaded a part of it. The single reason the site didn't ran like shit for them is coz office had direct fiber to out datacenter few blocks away. We really shouldn't allow web developers more than 128kbit o…
PSA for those who aren’t aware: Chromium/Firefox-based browsers have a Network tab in the developer tools where you can dial down your bandwidth to simulate a slower 3G or 4G connection. Combined with CPU throttling, it's a decent sanity check to see how well your site will perform on more modest setups.
CPU/network throttling needs to be set for the product manager and management - that's the only way you might see real change.
We have some egregious slowness in our app that only shows up for our largest customers in production but none of our organizations in development have that much data. I created a load testing organization and keep considering adding management to it so they implicitly get the idea that fixing the slowness is important.
Re: The 49MB web page
#305Ironically, this page is very slow on my laptop, not because of loading too much stuff, but due to the css effects.
Running this on the dev console makes it snappy again:
let allElements = document.querySelectorAll('\*');
allElements.forEach(element => {
element.style.filter = 'none';
element.style.backdropFilter = 'none';
});Re: The 49MB web page
#306They must pay really well, because, as a dev, how would you want to do that?
Re: The 49MB web page
#307These days the NYT is in a race to the bottom. I no longer even bother to bypass ads let alone read the news stories because of its page bloat and other annoyances. It's just not worth the effort. Surely news outlets like the NYT must realize that savvy web surfers like yours truly when encountering "difficult" news sites—those behind firewalls and or with megabytes of JavaScript bloat—will just go elsewhere or load…
It’s hard to beat https://lite.cnn.com and https://text.npr.org (I imagine their own employees likely use these as well) or https://newsminimalist.com
I also love https://www.cbc.ca/lite/news
They also compress the hell out of the images, so it all loads shockingly well on poor connections.
Re: The 49MB web page
#308These days the NYT is in a race to the bottom. I no longer even bother to bypass ads let alone read the news stories because of its page bloat and other annoyances. It's just not worth the effort. Surely news outlets like the NYT must realize that savvy web surfers like yours truly when encountering "difficult" news sites—those behind firewalls and or with megabytes of JavaScript bloat—will just go elsewhere or load…
> Surely news outlets like the NYT must realize that savvy web surfers like yours truly when encountering "difficult" news sites—those behind firewalls and or with megabytes of JavaScript bloat—will just go elsewhere or load pages without JavaScript. They know this. They also know that web surfers like you would never actually buy a subscription and you have an ad blocker running to deny any revenue generation opport…
>Visitors like you are a tiny minority who were never going to contribute revenue anyway.
It's closer to 30% that block ads. For subscription conversion, it's under 1%.
It's a large reason why the situation is so bad. But the internet is full of children, even grown children now in their 40's, who desperately still cling to this teenage idea that ad blocking will save the internet.
Re: The 49MB web page
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is strange to hear these threats about avoiding websites from people who are not subscribers and also definitely using an ad blocker. News sites aren’t publishing their content for the warm fuzzy feeling of seeing their visitor count go up. They’re running businesses. If you’re dead set on not paying and not seeing ads, it’s actually better for them that you don’t visit the site at all.
'Running a business' is not carte blanche to do whatever you like to get money, and it does not silence valid criticism. Businesses still exist in society and have to act accordingly. A primary mechanism that society has to enforce rules is criticism and shame.
Have you ever entertained that maybe consumers should act accordingly too?
That website is loaded with too many ads, I left it and am not going back.
Not
That website has too many ads, I'm getting an ad blocker and going back.
Re: The 49MB web page
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
PSA for those who aren’t aware: Chromium/Firefox-based browsers have a Network tab in the developer tools where you can dial down your bandwidth to simulate a slower 3G or 4G connection. Combined with CPU throttling, it's a decent sanity check to see how well your site will perform on more modest setups.
For Firefox users, here's where it's hidden (and it really is hidden): Hamburger menu -> More tools -> Web developer tools, then keep clicking on the ">>" until the Network tab appears, then scroll over on about the third menu bar down until you see "No throttling", that's a combobox that lets you set the speed you want. Alternatively, run uBlock Origin and NoScript and you probably won't need it.
A nitpick to add to the sibling comment, more a minor personal annoyance than anything: No throttling is a menu button that, when clicked, gives you a dropdown menu - not a "combobox". A combobox is a text input element that has an associated dropdown menu.
I see this mistake very often from people whose UI learnings came via Visual Studio, because it didn't have a separate UI element named "dropdown menu" or similar. You instead had to add a combobox and configure an option to turn it into a plain drodown list (e.g. set editable to false in VB6, or change dropDownStyle in VB.net).