61–70 of 356 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1MB per photo is fine. It's the content after all. Many sites today will load 10MB of JS and custom font crap alone, just to show a few paragraphs of text. I don't think the point is the size itself, but it's the content vs. bloat ratio.
1MB per photo is massive. Its easy to compress photos down to 100KB or less.
===
PageSpeed Insights scores:
Performance: 100% First Contentful Paint: 0.9 s Time to Interactive: 0.9 s Speed Index: 0.9 s Total Blocking Time: 0 ms Largest Contentful Paint: 0.9 s Cumulative Layout Shift: 0
Meh. Not bad.
Ok it's very good. Perfect. When you click around, it doesn't seem like a traditional client/server app, but like a SPA. Without being one!
That's only doable with a text-centric website. I'm currently finishing a photography section for my personal website, and the gallery pages are several hundred kBs in size, while single photo page is almost 1MB in size (provided you load it on a 28" screen; browser will load smaller variants on smaller screens). Most of that weight is the thumbnails (and almost-full-size photo in the latter case). The only JS I have…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1MB per photo is massive. Its easy to compress photos down to 100KB or less.
Wondering how. The banner image won't be displayed by Facebook or Twitter unless it's 1200x650 in size.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1MB per photo is fine. It's the content after all. Many sites today will load 10MB of JS and custom font crap alone, just to show a few paragraphs of text. I don't think the point is the size itself, but it's the content vs. bloat ratio.
1MB per photo is massive. Its easy to compress photos down to 100KB or less.
If it’s a gallery photo for a site promoting a photographers skill or library, nah…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1MB per photo is massive. Its easy to compress photos down to 100KB or less.
Wondering how. The banner image won't be displayed by Facebook or Twitter unless it's 1200x650 in size.
Shameless self-promotion: the homepage of plaintextsports.com is 5.2kb today [1], an in-progress WNBA game (4th quarter) is 11.2kb [2], and an extra inning MLB game is 8.8kb [3]. I wasn't aware of this size threshold, and I'm not at this level of optimization, but I'm always pleased to find more evidence of my playful claim that it's the "fastest website in the history of the internet". [1]: https://plaintextsports.c…
It's very small, but it's difficult to scan and painful to read. You could easily use built-in HTML structures to make it actually readable. Your site is, in my opinion, as much a deviation from the old readable web as the over-designed modern sites are. There are lots[1] of small, "class-less" CSS libraries that would keep your site as small (or smaller, with tree-shaking in a modern build system) and it would end u…