4 ms·

This guy's advice is exactly what Google advises you to do, and exactly what Google does. You say this website is only fast because it's "without any content".

by twhb 10y ago

This guy's advice is exactly what Google advises you to do, and exactly what Google does. You say this website is only fast because it's "without any content". If there's no content then tell me how it communicated its point so clearly. If it's inherently fast then tell me why the same thing posted to Medium is so slow. A hallmark of a great solution is that people who see it decide the problem must not have been very hard. http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~magi/personal/humour/Computer_Audience/The%20Parable%20of%20the%20Two%20Programmers.html http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~magi/personal/humour/Computer_Audienc...

rtpg 10y ago
Google doesn't do this on their more full-featured apps like G-Mail or Google Docs. Docs ships a bunch of files and stylesheets. Search works well because they have relatively few features to support by default (for things like the calculator I bet they ship that in with the response).
- ebalit 10y ago
  I think it's implied that these advices are for content pages, for the "old web", and not for single page apps.
  - totalcrepe 10y ago
    HN is neither of the two and IMO represents where people spend most of their time. I think Google's CSS embedding is terrible advice for the meaningful web, but logical advice for adwords landing pages or sites with content so bad or sparse you wont be navigating them.
    - aruggirello 10y ago
      HN has a purposely minimalist stylesheet / layout, with NO icons (except the one Y on the upper left corner), NO images or other media, NO fanciful animations. Not all websites can do without all of that - imagine a photography site, or an e-commerce site, etc. without pictures? I agree though that this is great advice for landing pages; load times are probably among the reasons of most bounces.
      - totalcrepe 10y ago
        Yes, and HN is in violation of Google's performance guidelines for putting those sensible rules in a sensible place. > Not all websites can do without all of that - imagine a photography site, or an e-commerce site, etc. without pictures? How does HN's CSS enforce a ban on img elements in pages pointing to a photo's canonical location? Or preclude putting your standard frames into it? Imagine a photography site where no photo link is shared across any pages (but 90 page base64 encoded URLs are repeated randomly), an ecommerce site where a product is shown in a strange new light at every step in the checkout process using a mishmash of entirely different CSS.. Google's advice is approving the most idiotic behavior on sites that are barely keeping their head above water in terms of technical understanding, letting them hold onto strange ideas because they are "fast."
      - coldtea 10y ago
        >Not all websites can do without all of that - imagine a photography site, or an e-commerce site, etc. without pictures? No, but I can imagine an photography site, or an e-commerce site without useless non-content pictures and shit-loads of CSS and JS.
    - nailer 10y ago
      > I think Google's CSS embedding is terrible advice for the meaningful web HTTP2 allows CSS to specified in the HTTP header. However Google AMP doesn't support it yet.
dordoka 10y ago
Please don't consider this as an attack but, I tend to believe that Google is not in the possession of the absolute truth. They even usually contradict themselves.

by twhb 10y ago

rtpg 10y ago

Google doesn't do this on their more full-featured apps like G-Mail or Google Docs. Docs ships a bunch of files and stylesheets. Search works well because they have relatively few features to support by default (for things like the calculator I bet they ship that in with the response).

ebalit 10y ago
I think it's implied that these advices are for content pages, for the "old web", and not for single page apps.
- totalcrepe 10y ago
  HN is neither of the two and IMO represents where people spend most of their time. I think Google's CSS embedding is terrible advice for the meaningful web, but logical advice for adwords landing pages or sites with content so bad or sparse you wont be navigating them.
  - aruggirello 10y ago
    HN has a purposely minimalist stylesheet / layout, with NO icons (except the one Y on the upper left corner), NO images or other media, NO fanciful animations. Not all websites can do without all of that - imagine a photography site, or an e-commerce site, etc. without pictures? I agree though that this is great advice for landing pages; load times are probably among the reasons of most bounces.
    - totalcrepe 10y ago
      Yes, and HN is in violation of Google's performance guidelines for putting those sensible rules in a sensible place. > Not all websites can do without all of that - imagine a photography site, or an e-commerce site, etc. without pictures? How does HN's CSS enforce a ban on img elements in pages pointing to a photo's canonical location? Or preclude putting your standard frames into it? Imagine a photography site where no photo link is shared across any pages (but 90 page base64 encoded URLs are repeated randomly), an ecommerce site where a product is shown in a strange new light at every step in the checkout process using a mishmash of entirely different CSS.. Google's advice is approving the most idiotic behavior on sites that are barely keeping their head above water in terms of technical understanding, letting them hold onto strange ideas because they are "fast."
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >Not all websites can do without all of that - imagine a photography site, or an e-commerce site, etc. without pictures? No, but I can imagine an photography site, or an e-commerce site without useless non-content pictures and shit-loads of CSS and JS.
  - nailer 10y ago
    > I think Google's CSS embedding is terrible advice for the meaningful web HTTP2 allows CSS to specified in the HTTP header. However Google AMP doesn't support it yet.

dordoka 10y ago

Please don't consider this as an attack but, I tend to believe that Google is not in the possession of the absolute truth. They even usually contradict themselves.