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

331–340 of 392 posts

Re: 1MB Club

#331

Post by sirn »

bityard wrote: post #139
droobles wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fair assessment for an MVP in the US, but you fail to scale globally if your site is bloated as not all countries and territories have the access to data at low cost the US has. Definitely worth it to optimize and reduce bloat after establishing your product's place in the market (or develop from the get-go with reducing bloat in mind).

> have the access to data at low cost the US has I don't know where you heard that, the US has some of the most expensive and slowest Internet access in the developed world. https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_price_rankings... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_...

I don't think this chart really tell much because most services are hosted in the US which some of these country have small or no direct link to (e.g. Thailand is 6th fastest in APAC on average speed, but the whole country has total of 30Gbps direct link to the US and pretty much have to route everything via HK or SG) which sometimes result in horrendous latency (~500ms) or speed (< 1 Mbps). It's fast at CDN edge where these surveys are taken, but page sizes still matter a lot.

Re: 1MB Club

#332

Post by zer0tonin »

ngcc_hk wrote: post #308
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…

Do they check the 1 MB limit?

Looks like they do yes.

Re: 1MB Club

#333

Post by thdrdt »

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…

I think an onload limit is much more useful than file size.

A 700kB JavaScript page can take up to 10 sec. to render on older mobile devices. And a 500kB image can contain megapixels which will slow down non-PGU browsers.

Personally I always go for a max 2 sec. limit on all devices.

Re: 1MB Club

#334

Post by rdumont »

Lerc wrote: post #184
highmastdon wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Indeed, but you also get more bang for your downloaded buck. My toy project https://k8.fingswotidun.com/static/ide/?gist=ad96329670965dc... Gives you an emulator, an 8-bit AVR Assembler, and an IDE for just over 500k transferred. Almost all of it JavaScript. Using math.js is by far the heaviest part but at least your Asm already knows things like solarMass and planckConstant :-). CodeMirror comes in second heaviest b…

> Indeed, but you also get more bang for your downloaded buck.

Yet this is most times used to load React to make a button clickable.

Re: 1MB Club

#335

Post by italiancheese »

soheil wrote: post #23

Interesting that a site that champions for performance has an ungodly favicon [0] that is 10x larger (15KB) than the page itself. [0] https://1mb.club/favicon.ico

I recently noticed something similar, while optimising my e-commerce website.

I went with:
Renders a black square, everywhere except Safari. The black square actually goes with the brand.

Re: 1MB Club

#336

Post by zer0tonin »

yellowapple wrote: post #206
wcerfgba wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the problem of CO2 / MB ?

I feel like it'd be more productive to reduce the CO2 per MB (e.g. using a 100% renewable-energy-powered hosting provider, pressuring ISPs to use renewables, pressuring power companies to use renewables, etc.) than to reduce the MB in this case.

Why not both?

Re: 1MB Club

#337

Post by sr1 »

seanwilson wrote: post #233

Here's my example of a non-trivial product landing page weighing in at 0.3MB transferred: https://www.checkbot.io/ Includes analytics, chat client, big product screenshot, theming and payment integration, so you can still do a lot well within 1MB.

0.006MB on brave :)

Re: 1MB Club

#338

Post by account42 »

e12e wrote: post #325
opan wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a way to force reader mode. Add "about:reader?url=" before your URL.

Thank you. But no easy way to force the button/option to appear for visitors, as the author of the page?

If you just want the button on all websites, get firefox to privide that option for you. No need to push that onto websites.

Re: 1MB Club

#339

Post by account42 »

Khaine wrote: post #266
userbinator wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Twitter's web version is an abomination. Every time you click on a link to read a tweet, you get an error. Every time. You need to force a refresh to get the content. Its an absolute joke. To any twitter "engineers" on HN, sort it or abort it.

Go to about:serviceworkers (for Firefox, other browsers might have it elsewhere) and remove anything related to twitter - or better yet disable service workers entirely. Not saying that this is acceptable, just providing a workaround.

Re: 1MB Club

#340

Post by GoblinSlayer »

italiancheese wrote: post #335
soheil wrote: post #23

Interesting that a site that champions for performance has an ungodly favicon [0] that is 10x larger (15KB) than the page itself. [0] https://1mb.club/favicon.ico

I recently noticed something similar, while optimising my e-commerce website. I went with: Renders a black square, everywhere except Safari. The black square actually goes with the brand.

Doesn't it support RLE compression?
Post reply on HN