4 ms·

We need a decent @media equivalent in HTML. We need a bandwidth @media selector (that is kept up to date with recent conditions by the browser). We need optio

We need a decent @media equivalent in HTML. We need a bandwidth @media selector (that is kept up to date with recent conditions by the browser). We need optional (viewport conditioned) lazy loading built into the spec. It's time for these features to become part of the web stack, but maybe we need a codified mediaQuery.js first.

WA 10y ago
All of this is unnecessary. Because it's actually possible to build lightweight and fast and yet beautiful websites. The available tools aren't the problem. The problem are the people who design their garbage collectors called websites. Someone in another thread suggested to colorize the address bar based on bytes transferred and/or requests made. Maybe it'll wake people up if they visit a website and it has some nice dark red color to show how much bandwidth is wasted.
- some1else 10y ago
  Your observation that it's possible to build xyz type of websites does not adequately discount the necessity of such features. I'm talking about improving those lightweight and beautiful websites even further. I implement some of those features on every project, to deliver the maximum content & experience quality in every network and device condition possible. You can't seriously try to shoe-horn the entire platform into whatever your vision of beauty is. Please keep an open mind about a complex future medium, that can effectively accommodate Netflix, YouTube, Facebook, Wikipedia, Photoshop, Open Office, Google Maps, Skype, Auto CAD, Grand Theft Auto VR, ...
  - WA 10y ago
    Point taken and I'm sure, you (and I for that matter) would benefit from your suggestions. But it wouldn't change anything for the existing bloated websites, because they could be written in a lightweight way but aren't.
lmm 10y ago
@media is part of the problem. We need less of that kind of complexity. Straightforward pages look fine at any screen size.
- some1else 10y ago
  There's way more to websites than how they look.

WA 10y ago

All of this is unnecessary. Because it's actually possible to build lightweight and fast and yet beautiful websites. The available tools aren't the problem. The problem are the people who design their garbage collectors called websites. Someone in another thread suggested to colorize the address bar based on bytes transferred and/or requests made. Maybe it'll wake people up if they visit a website and it has some nice dark red color to show how much bandwidth is wasted.

some1else 10y ago
Your observation that it's possible to build xyz type of websites does not adequately discount the necessity of such features. I'm talking about improving those lightweight and beautiful websites even further. I implement some of those features on every project, to deliver the maximum content & experience quality in every network and device condition possible. You can't seriously try to shoe-horn the entire platform into whatever your vision of beauty is. Please keep an open mind about a complex future medium, that can effectively accommodate Netflix, YouTube, Facebook, Wikipedia, Photoshop, Open Office, Google Maps, Skype, Auto CAD, Grand Theft Auto VR, ...
- WA 10y ago
  Point taken and I'm sure, you (and I for that matter) would benefit from your suggestions. But it wouldn't change anything for the existing bloated websites, because they could be written in a lightweight way but aren't.

lmm 10y ago

@media is part of the problem. We need less of that kind of complexity. Straightforward pages look fine at any screen size.

some1else 10y ago
There's way more to websites than how they look.