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

381–390 of 392 posts

Re: 1MB Club

#381

Post by scoot »

boplicity wrote: post #368
scoot wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. ;)

The fact that someone was able to infer a possible alternative meaning, just because the actual meaning wasn't credible doesn't make it any more correct.

In this case though, it was the context (1MB Club) that gave the clue. So, no.

Re: 1MB Club

#383

Post by ffpip »

Bud wrote: post #379
ffpip wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why. Can you explain?

Because of the large and rapidly-increasing number of sites that just refuse to work if you are running an ad blocker, unless you manually disable it first.

Can you link any site that doesn't work? It is easy enough to try and get past anti-adblock with uBlock Origin.

Try uBlock Origin. Don't use stuff like 'Adblock Plus/Pro'.

Re: 1MB Club

#384

Post by masswerk »

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…

Personally, I stuck to the 40K best practice recommendation for the basic web page as a target, which was in place when I started. Modified to up to 140K including webfonts. Notably, this is without images.

(This is a flexible target, depending on the complexity of a page. E.g. for a "bloated" page, a fully styled video display for competition winners showing 200+ entries and 280+ individual videos in categorized views is about 250K, including a few images, two and a half font families and the Vimeo Player SDK, but excluding the load of any external video streams. However, with compression we still manage the 140K mark.)

Then reality hits: Client insists on a full-width photographic hero image as it's still 2014. Usual controversies about a full-size intro video (autoplay, of course), we must have this highly intrusive chat asset installed, etc, etc… – And we easily blow the 1MB limit.

Re: 1MB Club

#385

Post by pyuser583 »

1MB is several novels.

That being said, one of the top sites is text.npr.com. It’s cool NPR has that (from an accessibility standpoint), but it shouldn’t get any awards for compact design.

Re: 1MB Club

#387

Post by hbrundage »

Aeolun wrote: post #190
crazygringo wrote: post #163

I don't mind highlighting and curating small sites for fun, that's neat. But calling larger sites a "cancerous growth on the web" just feels immature to me. Everything is just cost/benefit. There's no need to bring a black-and-white fanatical exaggerated mindset to it. You can celebrate something you like without having to make the alternative a disease , sheesh.

With all due respect. Modern news websites are a disease, and I find it pretty hard to disagree with the nomer cancerous growth since the behavior is spreading, and normalized by these websites. There is zero benefit to me in loading 20mb of garbage just so I can read 10kb of text.

That’s just it — no benefit to you, but a lot of benefit to them. They need analytics to sustain their business. They need ads to sustain their business. They (maybe) need fancy interactions to differentiate and thereby sustain their business. If you expect everyone else to only do things that benefit you instead of mediating between benefiting you and benefiting themselves, you’re gonna be pretty disappointed.

Re: 1MB Club

#388

Post by anoncake »

krapp wrote: post #143
geodel wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If general public even knew who to complain they would have surely yelled loudly. For now I hear non-tech people say 'Oh, our internet is slow even though we pay lot of money' Meanwhile valley bros keep helpfully reminding me to upgrade my computer to a reasonable 2020sh.

The general public likes to do things on the web other than reading minimalist hypertext. They like real-time chat and video and images and playing games in the browser. They would rather be able to do the things they like faster and more efficiently than abandon the last 20 years of technological progress.

The general public likes to do things other than reading minimal hypertext. They don't demand that we shoehorn everything into the web.

Re: 1MB Club

#389

Post by RussianCow »

Bud wrote: post #379
ffpip wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why. Can you explain?

Because of the large and rapidly-increasing number of sites that just refuse to work if you are running an ad blocker, unless you manually disable it first.

I think I can count on my fingers the number of instances of this that I've seen in my many years of using an ad blocker, and I don't even remember the last time it happened. To claim that some tiny percentage of websites doing this makes ad blockers "useless" is completely ridiculous.

Re: 1MB Club

#390

Post by ksec »

bob1029 wrote: post #238

Just checked our newest Blazor server-side web administration site in chrome devtools. 12 requests total, 322kB transferred (914kB uncompressed, so either way), finish in 991ms. Request was made between Texas and AWS us-east-1. Server running on a T3a instance. This is .NET Core 3.1 on Windows Server 2019. Of the 322kB, blazor.server.js is 39.2k and our JS interop shim is 3k. This represents all that is required to c…

> Blazor

Does that mean LiveView?

I guess we need a term for that since every framework is using a different name for it.

Post reply on HN