Is there an award for the opposite? Sites using more than 3 GB per visit? I'd win that one.
1MB Club
361–370 of 392 posts
Re: 1MB Club
#362Earlier 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…
>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
When I go to ebay I end up on the landing page. Then I have to enter my product name into the search. Then I will go into search settings and filter out auctions (if I want to order immediately). Then I have to open 3-4 different product listings. That's around 6 page loads. If each page takes 10 seconds then I would have to spend 1 minute doing nothing but waiting for the site 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.
Isn't it far more likely you are going to buy whatever you want from somewhere else?
>I, and people I know, feel like we buy very little on a whim. Is that unique? Are there whales who buy everything you can put in front of their face, or a different demographic who searches for something to buy and then changes their mind in precisely 850 milliseconds?
It's not about buying. It's about which store you visit when buying something. If your site performs poorly then users might not come to your online store. They may go to a competitor.
The thing about those averages is that they are quite unintuitive. Remember they are averaged over thousands or millions of users. There will always be some users with latency spikes because their device is much slower than usual or simply because servers are running at capacity. They are in the minority and have small effects on average metrics but the latency they see could be very high, maybe even up to 5 times the average. If you can decrease average latency by 1 second then the site might be 5 seconds faster for a minority of users.
>I would accept that like candy in the checkout lane, the profit is small but worth more than the extra effort it takes to put the offering there, but the revenue is small compared to the actual stuff people need to buy
You have to consider that each product listing on an online store is basically an ad. You are not necessarily buying all the products you see but each product listing informs you about what's available in the market place. If pages load faster you end up seeing more "ads" which increases the likely hood that you eventually do buy something.
Re: 1MB Club
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you were able to calculate the space in the document flow for those images, I'm fine with the lazy loading. I hate when the page text appears rendered long enough that I start reading, but then lazily loaded items cause the flow to rearrange the text so that I lose my place.
I imagine it should be pretty easy with javascript to set up dummy images, and replace them... probably also doable in pure css, just make them a block element or something, with a set size...
I miss lowsrc. It had a point.
Re: 1MB Club
#364https://restofworld.org/ initially loads <1M. But when you scroll down, it balloons to 3M as it loads more images. Should that count?
beautiful webpage either way, and remarkably small for all the media it includes.
Re: 1MB Club
#365I 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…
Agreed. 1MB seems more reasonable as a per-site threshold. Or, alternatively, somewhere between 10kB and 100kB as a per-page threshold. For context, 1MB is the same order of magnitude as the original Doom which was about 2.4MB in size. [1] [1]: https://www.wired.com/2016/04/average-webpage-now-size-origi...
I think it should be relative to content. As in versus actual text on the screen. This metric can also be applied "per-page" and "per-site", with less ambiguity for SPAs; every new load brings in more bytes, but also more text, thereby contributing to the ratio.
Even better - fixed site-wide assets (i.e css, js) to features; hence loading an entire framework only to use a small % of it's features is penalised.
Re: 1MB Club
#366In 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...
Yes, sorry, kB. If I recall correctly our argument was that because after the initial load we only needed to poll occasionally for small data updates users would probably save time/ bandwidth overall (a familiar argument for the present day SPA advocates)
Re: 1MB Club
#367Back in my day we did our websites in 5k.
Re: 1MB Club
#368Here'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).
Ironically, you seemed to have full (and complete) understanding of my intended meaning. Maybe you shouldn't comment on the use of language unless you have an understanding of linguistic deep structures. ;)
Re: 1MB Club
#369Shameless plug: My page, a fully-featured message board with tagging and stats, private key based accounts, and optional JavaScript features, the homepage is much smaller :)
Don't forget to plug your page at the end so we can check it out :D
I thought that is what profile is for?
Re: 1MB Club
#370Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
And the writers and editors and other staff members whose salaries are paid by that stuff.