5 ms·

Quite happy with my own web page/blog. Pages hover at around 10kb, 30kb if I include some images. I think the page size can be attributed a lot to there being n

by K0nserv 11y ago

Quite happy with my own web page/blog. Pages hover at around 10kb, 30kb if I include some images. I think the page size can be attributed a lot to there being no JS except for GA. I have taken a lot of inspiration from http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ and http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/ Of course the size will differ depending on the site's purpose, but I feel like most web pages could stand to loose a lot of weight. EDIT: I have a guide to setup a similar blog/site here[0] 0: https://hugotunius.se/2016/01/10/the-one-cent-blog.html https://hugotunius.se/2016/01/10/the-one-cent-blog.html

gonzo41 11y ago
Plus one for you. It used to be the internet was a book, now it's a movie.
- gkya 11y ago
  I think the case of WWW and Internet is one of the biggest collective misunderstandings and tragic fails in the history of technology (and maybe humanity). If there would be a study of average ratio of information in kilobytes to page size in kilobytes, the result would make us cry. I have a Notes.org file that holds most of my notes, a list of most movies I watched and I'll watch, most books I read and I'll read, most places I saw and I'll see... basically my life and its about 200kb, where most probably more nearly 100% of it is information, whereas most multi-meg webpages have two paragraphs worth of information on them.
alasano 11y ago
http://i.imgur.com/wB5B35g.png http://i.imgur.com/wB5B35g.png My user experience was great, I have to agree.
gradi3nt 11y ago
"You're a fucking moron if you use default browser styles." - Eleanor Roosevelt
- chriswarbo 11y ago
  I find it hard to take advice from anyone who makes such strong claims, in such a provocative manner, whilst failing so utterly in their own demonstration: https://imagebin.ca/v/2eeSxQABPMX9 https://imagebin.ca/v/2eeSxQABPMX9 Apparently that's "legible" and "looks the same in all... browsers". I certainly agree that BMFW has less contrast than the MFW; so little that it's difficult to read! For comparison, here's how MFW looks: https://imagebin.ca/v/2eeVa5QksF6e https://imagebin.ca/v/2eeVa5QksF6e White text on a black background, exactly as I asked for when I configured Firefox. Content taking up my whole widescreen monitor, exactly as I asked for when I made the Firefox window that size. The only thing BMFW seems to have correct is using sans-serif font; which I expect is because I unticked Firefox's "allow pages to override these fonts" option. Other than that, it looks like a me-too cargo-cult of MFW which completely misses the point. Presumably the creators of BMFW are using, and only ever test anything with, a black-on-white style which is, let me guess, the browser's default? What would that make them, in their own (jokingly "quoted") words?
  - snowwrestler 11y ago
    "I messed up my browser's settings, and now I'm upset that my browser looks messed up."
    - recursive 11y ago
      > "I messed up my browser's settings" ... Wrong. I changed my browser's settings to perfectly reasonable values. White text on a black background. Now I'm reasonably upset because my browser looks messed up.
  - Retr0spectrum 11y ago
    I'm a fan of white-on-black too, but whatever setting/addon you are using to acheive that effect seems to be very broken. It's unfair to blame BMFW for a problem created by, and unique to, your specific configuration.
    - 11y ago
jswny 11y ago
Great writeup! I might try this out later and see how it fairs. I haven't used the Jekyll + GitHub combo yet but I have heard great things.
- K0nserv 11y ago
  Thanks, glad you liked it :) If you do give it a try and run into problems tweet me at @k0nserv.
nickpsecurity 11y ago
That loaded SOOO fast on mobile with no delays or scrolling problems. Great job! Note: Might try it with NoScript later. Always a good indicator of... something...
- K0nserv 11y ago
  Fun story about NoScript. I used to use AMP[0]. But I reverted that for two reasons. 1. The size of their js is ~170kb roughly 17 times larger than most of my pages. 2. It loads from a 3d party domain which means that NoScript/uBlock Origin users will see a blank white page. The project does impose some constraints that will help reduce page weight and increase page speed, but for my page sizes it's ridiculous to use their JS. 0: https://www.ampproject.org/ https://www.ampproject.org/
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    The site certainly loaded fast. Never heard of them before. Thanks for the link.
  - SquareWheel 11y ago
    >1. The size of their js is ~170kb roughly 17 times larger than most of my pages. Presumably this would be heavily cached or baked into the browser, though -- assuming AMP takes off.
Malcx 11y ago
Shameless self promotion: https://github.com/Malcx/DamnSmallBlog https://github.com/Malcx/DamnSmallBlog
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
BafS 11y ago
I have begun a 1 ko framework based on this website, if anyone is interested, I just pushed the code right now https://github.com/BafS/mu https://github.com/BafS/mu
- niutech 11y ago
  There has long been http://www.1kbgrid.com http://www.1kbgrid.com

by K0nserv 11y ago

gonzo41 11y ago

Plus one for you. It used to be the internet was a book, now it's a movie.

gkya 11y ago
I think the case of WWW and Internet is one of the biggest collective misunderstandings and tragic fails in the history of technology (and maybe humanity). If there would be a study of average ratio of information in kilobytes to page size in kilobytes, the result would make us cry. I have a Notes.org file that holds most of my notes, a list of most movies I watched and I'll watch, most books I read and I'll read, most places I saw and I'll see... basically my life and its about 200kb, where most probably more nearly 100% of it is information, whereas most multi-meg webpages have two paragraphs worth of information on them.

alasano 11y ago

http://i.imgur.com/wB5B35g.png http://i.imgur.com/wB5B35g.png My user experience was great, I have to agree.

gradi3nt 11y ago

"You're a fucking moron if you use default browser styles." - Eleanor Roosevelt

chriswarbo 11y ago
I find it hard to take advice from anyone who makes such strong claims, in such a provocative manner, whilst failing so utterly in their own demonstration: https://imagebin.ca/v/2eeSxQABPMX9 https://imagebin.ca/v/2eeSxQABPMX9 Apparently that's "legible" and "looks the same in all... browsers". I certainly agree that BMFW has less contrast than the MFW; so little that it's difficult to read! For comparison, here's how MFW looks: https://imagebin.ca/v/2eeVa5QksF6e https://imagebin.ca/v/2eeVa5QksF6e White text on a black background, exactly as I asked for when I configured Firefox. Content taking up my whole widescreen monitor, exactly as I asked for when I made the Firefox window that size. The only thing BMFW seems to have correct is using sans-serif font; which I expect is because I unticked Firefox's "allow pages to override these fonts" option. Other than that, it looks like a me-too cargo-cult of MFW which completely misses the point. Presumably the creators of BMFW are using, and only ever test anything with, a black-on-white style which is, let me guess, the browser's default? What would that make them, in their own (jokingly "quoted") words?
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  "I messed up my browser's settings, and now I'm upset that my browser looks messed up."
  - recursive 11y ago
    > "I messed up my browser's settings" ... Wrong. I changed my browser's settings to perfectly reasonable values. White text on a black background. Now I'm reasonably upset because my browser looks messed up.
- Retr0spectrum 11y ago
  I'm a fan of white-on-black too, but whatever setting/addon you are using to acheive that effect seems to be very broken. It's unfair to blame BMFW for a problem created by, and unique to, your specific configuration.
  - 11y ago

jswny 11y ago

Great writeup! I might try this out later and see how it fairs. I haven't used the Jekyll + GitHub combo yet but I have heard great things.

K0nserv 11y ago
Thanks, glad you liked it :) If you do give it a try and run into problems tweet me at @k0nserv.

nickpsecurity 11y ago

That loaded SOOO fast on mobile with no delays or scrolling problems. Great job! Note: Might try it with NoScript later. Always a good indicator of... something...

K0nserv 11y ago
Fun story about NoScript. I used to use AMP[0]. But I reverted that for two reasons. 1. The size of their js is ~170kb roughly 17 times larger than most of my pages. 2. It loads from a 3d party domain which means that NoScript/uBlock Origin users will see a blank white page. The project does impose some constraints that will help reduce page weight and increase page speed, but for my page sizes it's ridiculous to use their JS. 0: https://www.ampproject.org/ https://www.ampproject.org/
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  The site certainly loaded fast. Never heard of them before. Thanks for the link.
- SquareWheel 11y ago
  >1. The size of their js is ~170kb roughly 17 times larger than most of my pages. Presumably this would be heavily cached or baked into the browser, though -- assuming AMP takes off.

Malcx 11y ago

Shameless self promotion: https://github.com/Malcx/DamnSmallBlog https://github.com/Malcx/DamnSmallBlog

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

BafS 11y ago

I have begun a 1 ko framework based on this website, if anyone is interested, I just pushed the code right now https://github.com/BafS/mu https://github.com/BafS/mu

niutech 11y ago
There has long been http://www.1kbgrid.com http://www.1kbgrid.com