3 ms·
Slightly related question: Does the carbon footprint increase with all this client side rendering? I would think just rendering something charcoal on the compu
by MrQuincle 10y ago
Slightly related question: Does the carbon footprint increase with all this client side rendering?
I would think just rendering something charcoal on the computer of the designer should be enough, rather than repeating it on the machines of thousands of visitors?
- snarfy 10y agoIt's a good question. What about the network transmission? What's the carbon footprint of transmitting a 50k image to thousands of visitors vs a handful of bytes in css? I agree it does push more energy usage to the client, but I'm not sure how total energy usage adds up. In any event I don't like it because it kills my battery.
- onion2k 10y agoYes, and if your website is using CSS effects to change the same image for every user then you're making a mistake. Just render the modified image to a static asset and serve that. However, if you want to use a pencil effect on an image that you don't have control over (eg a user's image before they upload it, or something from an API-driven service like Unsplash) then the technique still has a lot of value.
- andybak 10y agoAre these really that CPU intensive? It's a very basic transform. Probably a rounding error in terms of overall rendering energy usage.