4 ms·
> except for adding just enough JS to do Medium-like lazy image loading to save bandwidth for visitors. Please, please don't do that: it means that visitors wi
by wtbob 10y ago
> except for adding just enough JS to do Medium-like lazy image loading to save bandwidth for visitors.
Please, please don't do that: it means that visitors without JavaScript enabled simply cannot view your page.
If a visitor wishes to configure his browser not to download images until he scrolls near them, that's certainly within his power. But if you break your page and only unbreak it for those with JavaScript, then your visitors have no choice.
- rcarmo 10y agoWell, they do get a placeholder image (a blurry one, around 1-4k in size) as default. The percentage of folk with JS disabled seems to be around 1% of visitors to generic web sites (no hard figures here, only search hits on quora and a few analytics sites), and is likely to be pretty much zero for mobile users, so... I'm OK with the trade off, since I'd much rather improve the experience for those who pay through their nose for mobile bandwidth.
- wtbob 10y ago> I'm OK with the trade off, since I'd much rather improve the experience for those who pay through their nose for mobile bandwidth. I know that your heart is in the right place, but I believe that you're making the wrong decision. I suppose it's one thing if each image is also a link to the high-res source (although I wonder why suitably-scaled images can't be served to everyone), and if the images are irrelevant to your text. But particularly if there is no way for clients without JavaScript to see images, then I think you're breaking the web. I think that JavaScript disabling will become more and more common as advertising and tracking becomes more and more intrusive. A client who enables JavaScript disables security, disables privacy and disables performance.